Skip to content

Two hundred contracts, eight questions.

The answers are in there — spread over a few thousand pages, phrased differently by every counterparty, and half of them superseded by an amendment filed somewhere else. Ragextract reads the set once and hands back a table, with every answer citing the clause it came from.

Free credits on sign-up. No card, no subscription.

Supplier contract review
Four supplier agreements compared on effective date, renewal terms, liability cap and IP assignment, each answer citing the clause it was read from.
RowDocumentsEffective dateRenewal termsLiability capIP assignment
Northgate logistics MSA.pdf1 Apr 2024
p.1
Auto-renews annually, 90 days’ notice
cl. 14.2
12 months’ fees
cl. 21.1
Assigned to customer on payment
cl. 11.3
Facilities services MSA.pdfAmendment 1.pdfAmendment 2.pdfAmendment 3.pdf12 Sep 2021
p.2
Auto-renews, notice cut to 30 days
Am. 3, cl. 2
Uncapped for IP and confidentiality
cl. 19.4
Licence only, no assignment
cl. 9.1
Data processing addendum.pdf3 Jan 2026
p.1
Coterminous with the MSA
cl. 3
Not statedNot stated
Reseller agreement.pdfOrder form.pdf30 Jun 2025
p.1
Fixed 3-year term, no auto-renewal
cl. 4.1
Greater of £250k or fees paid
cl. 16.2
Mutual, background IP retained
cl. 12
Row 2 is one agreement bundled with its three amendmentsIts renewal answer comes from Amendment 3, not the original

The re-read is the cost, not the read.

Anything can produce a confident answer from a contract. What nothing tells you is which of the two hundred answers to check — so the check becomes a second pass over the whole set, and the reading was the expensive part all along.

Every cell here carries the page it was read from and a confidence score. Checking is a click on the four cells that look wrong, not a review of the other one hundred and ninety-six. That is the difference between a table you can put in front of a partner and a table you have to redo.

How citations and confidence work

A framework agreement bundled with its first amendment, answering as one row on change of control and governing law.
DocumentChange of controlGoverning law
Framework agreement +1Consent required, deemed given after 20 days
cl. 23.4
England & Wales
Am. 1, cl. 5
2 documents · 1 rowThe governing law citation lands in the amendment, not the agreement

An agreement is rarely one document.

A master agreement, three amendments, a side letter and an order form are one contract. Read separately, they produce a table that reports a notice period which stopped being true eighteen months ago — confidently, and with a citation to prove it.

Group them into a bundle and the bundle is the row. The answer accounts for all of it and tells you which document it actually came from, so a superseded term is visible rather than silently wrong. A bundle holds up to fifteen documents; the first three are included in the column’s rate.

Bundles, and how precedence is decided

Where it fits.

The first decision is always what a row is. Get that right and the columns follow; get it wrong and no amount of prompt-writing rescues the table.

Four kinds of legal and procurement work, what a row represents in each, and which set of columns to start from.
The workWhat a row is
Contract reviewAn agreement, with its amendments and order forms
Renewal and expiry trackingAn agreement, as amended
Disclosure and diligence reviewA disclosed document
NDA and confidentiality triageAn NDA

The preset ships in the application and its prompts are illustrative starting points rather than legal definitions — they are meant to be edited to fit your documents. Contract review and renewals and expiry are both worked through end to end, including what tends to go wrong. Leases have a page of their own, because a lease is a different row.

Two other teams read this same paper. Procurement reads it for price mechanisms, uplift caps and exit; compliance reads it for the obligations that follow from it. Because ingestion is charged once, all three tables can live over one set of documents.

Reading is charged once.

A workspace is billed for the pages it reads, not for the questions asked of them. The eighth question costs the same as the first, and asking it next quarter costs no more than asking it today — which is what makes a question you had not thought of worth asking at all.

Credit rates in full

What a 200-contract review costs in credits at the published rates.
A 200-contract reviewVolumeCost
200 contracts, 30 pages each — read once6,000 pages6,000 credits
4 questions asked of all 200800 cells800 credits
A fifth question, asked next quarter200 cells200 credits
7,000 credits · $70 at parBulk top-ups carry a bonus, so the real rate is lower

Who can see a matter.

A workspace is private until you add a sharing rule. Rules grant Read, Read & Write or Manage, to the whole organisation, to a role, or to one person — and they are granted per workspace, so a set shared with a client team stays separate from the one beside it.

Sharing and access levels

Start with a contract you already have.

Upload one agreement and its amendments, write two columns, and read the citations. Two rows is enough to tell whether the answers hold up on your documents — which is the only test that matters.

Nothing on this page is legal advice, and the presets are not legal definitions.