Every finding names the provision it rests on.
The engine reads from a fixed list of 37 Indian provisions and cannot cite anything outside it. That is what makes a finding checkable, and what lets you take it to an advocate as a question rather than a hunch.
A closed list of provisions
The analysis prompt embeds 37 provisions and instructs the model to cite only from them. A risk outside that list can still be flagged as one-sided or unusual, but no citation gets attached to it. The model cannot introduce a statute, a section or a case of its own.
Confidence tiers, not one flat voice
21 provisions are settled enough to state plainly. 12 are hedged as “courts have generally held”. 4 are hedged explicitly, and any finding relying on one is capped at MEDIUM severity however serious it looks. Certainty is reported, not performed.
We flag, we do not advise
The report describes what your document says and what a provision says, and notes where they appear to differ. It does not tell you what you are entitled to, predict how a court would rule, or instruct you to act against anyone. Those are an advocate’s calls on your full facts.
Where this actually saves you money
Not by replacing your advocate. By changing what you pay them for.
The first pass over a contract is reading and hunting: working out what is in the document and which parts deserve attention. You are billed for that whether or not you already know the answer. It is also the part a careful reader can do in advance.
Walk in with the clauses already located, the provision each one engages already named, and your questions already written, and the conversation starts at judgment: is this one worth fighting, what would you accept instead, what does this mean given everything you know about my position. That is the expensive expertise, and it is the part you actually want to buy.
What you hand your advocate
- A risk report listing every flagged clause, quoted, with the provision it engages
- The clauses ranked, so the conversation starts with what matters most
- Suggested alternative wording for the ones you choose to raise
- A written record of what you asked and why, which is useful later
We deliberately do not publish a rupee figure for what this saves. Advocate rates vary far too much by city, seniority and matter for any honest number to exist, and a number we made up would undermine the point of this page.
Citations checked against the source
32 of the 37 provisions have had their citation and statutory wording checked against the bare Act or an authoritative report, with the source recorded. Where a check changed what we say, we changed it. This is a text check rather than legal sign-off, and we would rather say which is which than blur the two.
Common questions
Does this replace an advocate?
No, and it is not designed to. It tells you which clauses are worth asking about and which provision each one engages. Deciding what that means for your situation, and what to do about it, is an advocate’s job on the full facts.
How does it actually reduce what I spend on legal fees?
An advocate’s first pass over a contract is spent reading it and locating the issues, and you pay for that whether or not you already know what is in it. Arriving with the clauses identified, the provisions cited and your questions written down moves that time from discovery to judgment, which is the part worth paying for.
Can the AI invent a law?
It cannot cite one. The prompt embeds a fixed list of provisions and instructs the model to cite only from that list; anything outside it can still be flagged as one-sided or unusual, but without a citation attached. That is a deliberate limit on what the model is allowed to claim.
What if a finding is wrong?
Every finding names the provision it rests on, so it can be checked rather than taken on trust. That is the point of citing: a finding you can verify is more useful than one you cannot, even when it turns out to be wrong.
See what a report looks like before you pay
A real review of a 34-page Master Services Agreement, with the provision behind every finding and the negotiation email generated from it.
ClauseAudit provides information and analysis, not legal advice, and using it does not create an advocate–client relationship. Statutes and rules change, particularly under the Labour Codes where State rules are still being notified. Consult a qualified advocate before acting on any finding.