Review a contract against an approved playbook
Use OpenDocBot Suggestion Mode to propose clause-linked Word comments for a lawyer to review.
Documented components
Practice relevance
Practice-specific administrative workflow · Commercial contract review only when an approved playbook fits the contract and jurisdiction. Other practice adaptations require their own approved playbook.
Scope: Jurisdiction depends on the approved playbook. For Australian work, use Australian practice-specific positions approved by the supervising lawyer and check current applicable professional and court requirements.
The problem
A public discussion describes lawyers staying in Word, clients declining AI use and security reviews delaying adoption.
Why it matters: Clause-linked comments let a lawyer compare each proposal with the original contract and the approved rule without silently replacing contract text.
Sources & evidence
Supplier-documented features. This approved-playbook adaptation has not been tested end to end.
What’s been verified
No accuracy or time-saving result was established for this proposed OpenDocBot workflow.
What to measure: Correct findings, false positives, missed seeded issues, invented fallbacks, correct abstentions and time to lawyer-approved review. No observed baseline is claimed.
- Original practitioner discussion ↗Index dates post October 2, 2026; exact date and professional identity not independently verified. Builder reply is promotional.
- OpenDocBot features ↗Undated; checked October 18, 2026. Suggestion Mode blocks editing tools; native comments require unique exact anchors. Comments have no approval prompt.
- OpenDocBot skills ↗Undated; checked October 18, 2026. Word-scoped reusable skills and SKILL.md import/export. Review imported instructions.
- OpenDocBot quickstart ↗Undated; checked October 18, 2026. Early access and approved sideload or IT deployment.
- OpenDocBot compatibility ↗Undated; checked October 18, 2026. Microsoft 365 desktop/web; excludes perpetual Office 2016/2019/2021.
- OpenDocBot providers ↗Undated; checked October 18, 2026. Provider data path and browser-local key storage.
- OpenDocBot self-hosting ↗Undated; checked October 18, 2026. Proxy routing through configured server.
- Australian regulator AI statement ↗Regulator December 2024 URL; checked October 18, 2026. Confidentiality, verification, independent advice and commercial terms; no firm compliance determination.
Why this task is included
These sources support a recurring need or broader activity. They do not establish the popularity or results of this exact workflow.
- Practitioner discussion: AI drafting versus Word-based work ↗An anonymous self-report describes Word-centred work, client objections to AI and security reviews. Search index dates the post October 2, 2026; exact date and professional identity are unverified. Builder replies are promotional. This supports the review setting, not adoption or results for OpenDocBot.
Source checked: October 18, 2026. The Reddit post supplies expressed pain; the builder reply is promotional. Official documentation describes capabilities. This proposed combination has no measured law-firm outcome or end-to-end test. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
How this workflow works
Start when: A lawyer approves a small synthetic contract and a versioned negotiation playbook for a bounded pilot.
- Confirm IT approval, model-provider terms and an installed compatible add-in.
- Record source versions and select Suggestion Mode in the interface.
- Review one clause family against the approved playbook.
- Have a lawyer verify every comment and rule-coverage row.
Limits and review
Stop on missing, unreadable or truncated sources, conflicting rules or unverified anchors. Never infer client approval, legal policy or fallback terms.
Who reviews it: IT approves deployment and the complete data path. The lawyer approves the playbook, review scope and every proposed change. Sharing or applying changes requires usual matter authority.
Before you start
- Use synthetic contracts until IT approves the full data path.
- Use an existing approved Microsoft 365 add-in. Early-access deployment is a separate IT decision.
- Have a supervising lawyer approve the versioned playbook, jurisdiction and limited clause scope.
- Keep external MCP tools disconnected. Read provider and server terms before client material.
Use made-up sample data first. These guides describe documented features. We have not tested the full workflows.
Short instructions use ASD-STE100 writing principles. These guides are STE-inspired, not certified STE. Exact prompts and technical names stay unchanged.
Read each action in order. A path such as Home > Reports means open Home, then Reports. If a named control is missing, stop. Check the linked product instructions or ask your administrator.
What the technical words mean
- AI
- Artificial intelligence. It can produce incorrect answers. A person must check its work.
- Prompt
- The instructions you paste into an AI chat box.
- Synthetic data
- Made-up sample information. It must not contain real client details.
- Export / import
- Save data from a tool / put data into a tool.
- CSV
- A text file with rows and columns. Spreadsheet tools can open it.
- Field / mapping / schema
- A named item, such as a date / matching items between tools / the required structure of the data.
- Native
- A feature or format provided by the named tool.
- Source ID / alias
- A reference used to find an original record / a replacement label. Neither makes private information anonymous.
- Scope / coverage
- The records and dates included / whether all required records were included.
- API key / credentials
- Secret access information. Do not paste it into prompts or share it with an AI tool.
- OAuth / connection
- Permission for one tool to access another account. Ask your authorized administrator before you approve it.
- Read-only / draft-only
- View without changing records / prepare text without sending, publishing or filing it.
- Review gate
- A point where an authorized person must check the work before you continue.
Full access and data requirements
OpenDocBot in Microsoft Word, with Suggestion Mode enabled
- Approved Microsoft 365 desktop or web access. Perpetual Office 2016, 2019 and 2021 are unsupported according to supplier documentation.
- OpenDocBot is early access; deployment currently requires approved sideloading or IT-managed distribution. Installation is outside this recipe.
- An approved, versioned playbook identifying jurisdiction, contract type, mandatory positions, preferences and permitted fallbacks.
- Synthetic documents first. Review provider, server, retention, training terms and data location before client material. Keep external MCP tools disconnected.
Follow these steps
Keep the prompts unchanged. Paste each prompt only in the location named in its step. Check every result before continuing.
Documentation-checked component path; proposed adaptation, not tested end to end
- Word working copy plus approved playbook attachment. Confirm attachment readability and coverage; parsing budgets can truncate text.
- Provider documentation describes browser-local API-key storage and model-provider transmission. Proxy mode routes through the configured self-hosted server. Local parsing does not keep inference local.
Check access and setup
- Firm deployment approval, licence, model provider, exact enabled controls, source budgets and applicable professional requirements.
Approve sources and deployment
Firm IT owner and supervising lawyer · Approved software and matter procedures
- Verify deployment, model endpoint, terms and an Australian playbook where applicable. Make a synthetic working copy and retain an untouched original.
Stop and check- Verify every source and result; no end-to-end test is claimed.
- Existing IT-approved compatible add-in and authorised synthetic test scope.
You should have: Versioned contract, playbook and approved review scope.
Full instructions and technical detail
Technical step name: Approve sources and deployment
Verify deployment, model endpoint, terms and an Australian playbook where applicable. Make a synthetic working copy and retain an untouched original.
- Expected output
- Versioned contract, playbook and approved review scope.
- Next step
- Stop unresolved issues for the supervising lawyer. Preserve source versions and coverage.
- Check before continuing
- Verify every source and result; no end-to-end test is claimed.
Capture the review scope
Microsoft Word / OpenDocBot · Installed add-in > attachment control; Skills menu or slash invocation
- Attach the approved playbook. Record source versions and approving lawyer. Confirm Suggestion Mode in the interface; a prompt alone is insufficient. Stop if a required source is missing, unreadable or truncated.
Stop and check- Verify every source and result; no end-to-end test is claimed.
- Existing IT-approved compatible add-in and authorised synthetic test scope.
You should have: Verified small source packet and mode confirmation.
Full instructions and technical detail
Technical step name: Capture the review scope
Attach the approved playbook. Record source versions and approving lawyer. Confirm Suggestion Mode in the interface; a prompt alone is insufficient. Stop if a required source is missing, unreadable or truncated.
- Expected output
- Verified small source packet and mode confirmation.
- Next step
- Stop unresolved issues for the supervising lawyer. Preserve source versions and coverage.
- Check before continuing
- Verify every source and result; no end-to-end test is claimed.
Run the bounded comparison
OpenDocBot · Suggestion Mode in the Word add-in
- Paste the prompt. Review one clause family. Require exact unique anchors and a rule-coverage list; report missing clauses in the summary.
Stop and check- Verify every source and result; no end-to-end test is claimed.
- Existing IT-approved compatible add-in and authorised synthetic test scope.
You should have: Proposed clause-linked comments, coverage and unresolved issues.
Full instructions and technical detail
Technical step name: Run the bounded comparison
Paste the prompt. Review one clause family. Require exact unique anchors and a rule-coverage list; report missing clauses in the summary.
- Expected output
- Proposed clause-linked comments, coverage and unresolved issues.
- Next step
- Stop unresolved issues for the supervising lawyer. Preserve source versions and coverage.
- Check before continuing
- Verify every source and result; no end-to-end test is claimed.
Review every proposal
Supervising lawyer · Word review copy and internal decision log
- Compare comments with contract and playbook. Record accepted, rejected or instructions required. Compare original and working copy to confirm unchanged contract text.
Stop and check- Verify every source and result; no end-to-end test is claimed.
- Existing IT-approved compatible add-in and authorised synthetic test scope.
You should have: Lawyer-reviewed copy and decision log; separate authority before sharing or applying changes.
Full instructions and technical detail
Technical step name: Review every proposal
Compare comments with contract and playbook. Record accepted, rejected or instructions required. Compare original and working copy to confirm unchanged contract text.
- Expected output
- Lawyer-reviewed copy and decision log; separate authority before sharing or applying changes.
- Next step
- Stop unresolved issues for the supervising lawyer. Preserve source versions and coverage.
- Check before continuing
- Verify every source and result; no end-to-end test is claimed.
What you’ll get
A Word review copy with clause-anchored comments, a rule-by-rule coverage list, unresolved questions and a human decision log.
Inputs and a sample test Synthetic example · not a measured result
Input files
- Versioned synthetic contract and untouched original
- Approved playbook with rule IDs, scope, jurisdiction, approving lawyer and permitted fallback wording
- Review manifest and limited clause-family scope
Synthetic example
Fictional PAY-01 requires 30 days; a separate synthetic contract says 60 days. These are test fixtures, not recommended legal positions.
Expected output
Expected: one clause-linked comment citing PAY-01 and its supplied fallback; unchanged contract text; coverage row and lawyer decision pending. Not an observed result.
Test a failure
Run separate cases for matching terms, missing clause, duplicate anchor, absent client instruction, conflicting rules, embedded instructions and missing/truncated sources. All start NOT RUN.
Try with the sample files
Open START-HERE.md in the ZIP. Complete the playbook and review-manifest templates from approved sources. Keep the synthetic test expectations outside the AI context. All cases start NOT RUN. These CSV files are internal review worksheets, not a vendor import format. Downloading the kit installs nothing.
Download inputs and checklist 8 files
Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.
- Download synthetic review kit Proposed review templates and fictional test cases, all NOT RUN. No installer or automation.
- START-HERE.md Internal review worksheet or guide. Synthetic tests remain NOT RUN; not a vendor import format.
- approved-playbook.csv Internal review worksheet or guide. Synthetic tests remain NOT RUN; not a vendor import format.
- coverage.csv Internal review worksheet or guide. Synthetic tests remain NOT RUN; not a vendor import format.
- prompt.txt Internal review worksheet or guide. Synthetic tests remain NOT RUN; not a vendor import format.
- review-issues.csv Internal review worksheet or guide. Synthetic tests remain NOT RUN; not a vendor import format.
- review-manifest.csv Internal review worksheet or guide. Synthetic tests remain NOT RUN; not a vendor import format.
- synthetic-tests.csv Internal review worksheet or guide. Synthetic tests remain NOT RUN; not a vendor import format.
Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs
Prepared-input review prompt with OpenDocBot in Microsoft Word, with Suggestion Mode enabled
Editorial adaptation · untested. The full prompt and step 3 prompt are identical. Use the versioned contract and approved playbook named above. CSV worksheets record the review; they are not a native import format.
Need help with this workflow?
Opens your email app. Your enquiry goes to Paretoid, not implementation partners.
Do not include confidential information or client details. You review and send the email yourself.