● B2B offer — Contracts & lifecycle
Contracts: from drafting to expiry, nothing gets lost
A contract lives on after signature: obligations to meet, renewal dates, notice periods for termination, price reviews. Your agent tracks that full cycle — assembly from your templates, the signature process, then monitoring of obligations and dates. Hosted in France: your commitments and your negotiated terms stay with you. The legal department settles the clauses and decides on renewals.
Hosted in France
Contractual commitments protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Contract lifecycle · hosted in France
What contractual dates fall in the next three months?
Nine contracts concerned: four automatic renewals, three price reviews, two ends of committed term.
For each: the applicable clause, the effective date and the notice period to observe.
Two notice periods are already running: they are put at the top.
🔗 Sourced · clauses of the contracts in force
For each: the applicable clause, the effective date and the notice period to observe.
Two notice periods are already running: they are put at the top.
🔗 Sourced · clauses of the contracts in force
What needs doing about the automatic renewals?
For each one I set out the renewal clause, the notice period and the terms that will apply to the new period.
Renewing, renegotiating or terminating commits the company for several years: that decision belongs to the legal department.
✎ Support · material gathered, legal decision
Renewing, renegotiating or terminating commits the company for several years: that decision belongs to the legal department.
✎ Support · material gathered, legal decision
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Contracts hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The legal department decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent contract management agent covers the whole lifecycle: assembly from your templates, the signature process, then monitoring of obligations, dates and notice periods with the applicable clause cited. Renewing, renegotiating or terminating remains a legal decision. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your commitments stay with you, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
6
contract uses ready to deploy
0
decision taken without human approval
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your number of contracts and the variety of your templates is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to your contract lifecycle?
A date seen three months ahead opens a negotiation; seen after the renewal has gone through, it waits a year.
! The issue
A contract portfolio carries obligations, dates and notice periods scattered through the clauses. Keeping them up to date by hand means re-reading every contract regularly. The agent extracts these elements at signature, monitors them continuously and presents every date with the clause it rests on and the notice period to observe.
✓ Our answer
The legal department sees the dates coming early enough to choose: renew, renegotiate or terminate. Those decisions commit the company for several years and remain theirs, as does settling the clauses at the drafting stage. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: your commitments and your negotiated terms do not leave the company.
The decisive point
Your commitments and your negotiated terms: sovereignty & compliance
Your contracts contain your negotiated terms, often covered by a confidentiality clause. Here is how they are protected.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no contract and no negotiated term leaves the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your contracts and their lifecycle: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For your commitments and your negotiated terms, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunity.
Isolated resource
No pooling: an environment strictly dedicated to your company and its contract portfolio.
Every date refers back to its clause
Obligations, dates and notice periods are presented with the clause of the contract they rest on; encryption, role-based access and logging of each contract's cycle.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no renewal is accepted and no termination is sent automatically; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For strategic contracts, non-disclosure agreements and transactions in progress, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting are options depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
5 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
The company in this demonstration
Fictional companyVelmaris — technical building operations group (multi-technical maintenance and energy)
- Sector
- Technical building operations — multi-technical maintenance, energy, fire safety
- Headcount
- 240 staff, including a 3-person legal department (1 head of legal, 2 lawyers) and 4 contract administrators
- Clients served
- Social housing landlords, local authorities and corporate head offices, across France
- Portfolio
- 412 live contracts, €31 M annual revenue, average three-year term with renewal
- Tools in place
- A 9-year document management system, an ERP, an e-signature workflow, shared calendars — the agent plugs into them, nothing is replaced
- Who decides
- The head of legal arbitrates the clauses and signs; the operations director approves the drafts; the executive board signs above €250,000
- Room for improvement
- The deadlines of 412 contracts live in a spreadsheet refreshed once a quarter; re-reading contracts to find a deadline takes 60 % of the legal department's contract time; a draft contract takes 3 days to assemble
Velmaris signs and renews a great deal, and wants every deadline to arrive early enough to open a negotiation rather than absorb one. The agent runs locally on a machine at head office and plugs into the document management system, the ERP, the e-signature workflow and the calendars: it drafts, tracks and monitors; the head of legal arbitrates and signs. The exchanges below cover six months, from taking on the portfolio to the review.
This company, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real client.
Contract lifecycle · hosted in France
I read your 412 live contracts last night, amendments and schedules included, and pulled out 1,840 obligations and deadlines — each with the clause that grounds it, its page and its date.
What the portfolio carries, and what your quarterly spreadsheet saw part of:
· 96 deadlines fall due within six months, including 34 automatic renewals — an automatic renewal is the clause that extends the contract for a further period without anyone signing anything, simply because the notice window has closed.
· 21 price reviews attached to an indexation clause — the contractual formula that moves the price each year against a public index agreed at signature.
· 12 notice periods are already running — the notice period is the time you must respect before a deadline to say you are not renewing; once it passes, the next period is committed. Those twelve are at the top of the list.
The gap I measured, and it is the gap that decides the gain: 232 of the 1,840 obligations live in an amendment or a schedule, not in the main contract. They are exactly the ones a quarterly re-read leaves aside, because they mean opening three documents instead of one.
What that gives you this morning: re-reading contracts to find a deadline took 60 % of your legal department's contract time; it now takes 7 %. Across three people, that is the equivalent of one and a half full-time posts handed back to negotiation.
What I suggest: the head of legal reviews the inventory by contract family — clients, subcontractors, leases, insurance — and I switch the quarterly spreadsheet to continuous tracking as soon as she approves it. Your current paths and file names keep working: nothing is renamed, nothing is moved. contract-inventory_1840-dated-obligations.pdf412 contracts, 96 deadlines within six months
⛓ Sourced · document management system (9 years), 412 live contracts, amendments and schedules, ERP
What the portfolio carries, and what your quarterly spreadsheet saw part of:
· 96 deadlines fall due within six months, including 34 automatic renewals — an automatic renewal is the clause that extends the contract for a further period without anyone signing anything, simply because the notice window has closed.
· 21 price reviews attached to an indexation clause — the contractual formula that moves the price each year against a public index agreed at signature.
· 12 notice periods are already running — the notice period is the time you must respect before a deadline to say you are not renewing; once it passes, the next period is committed. Those twelve are at the top of the list.
The gap I measured, and it is the gap that decides the gain: 232 of the 1,840 obligations live in an amendment or a schedule, not in the main contract. They are exactly the ones a quarterly re-read leaves aside, because they mean opening three documents instead of one.
What that gives you this morning: re-reading contracts to find a deadline took 60 % of your legal department's contract time; it now takes 7 %. Across three people, that is the equivalent of one and a half full-time posts handed back to negotiation.
What I suggest: the head of legal reviews the inventory by contract family — clients, subcontractors, leases, insurance — and I switch the quarterly spreadsheet to continuous tracking as soon as she approves it. Your current paths and file names keep working: nothing is renamed, nothing is moved. contract-inventory_1840-dated-obligations.pdf412 contracts, 96 deadlines within six months
⛓ Sourced · document management system (9 years), 412 live contracts, amendments and schedules, ERP
Our spreadsheet knows 180 of them. Where exactly do the others come from?
From amendments and special conditions, and I can show you the path to each one. Of the 1,840, 1,814 already point to a precise clause, page and paragraph.
How I find them when nothing indexed them: I read what is inside the documents, not their file names. An amendment saved as VELM_2023_am2_signed_ok.pdf is attached to its main contract by the parties, the subject matter and the date — and it brings in 4 obligations the original contract never carried.
The figure that does not flatter me, and what I did with it: 26 deadlines arrived without an identifiable clause. The cause is clear and measurable: 26 paper contracts from 2017 and 2018, scanned at 150 dots per inch, whose text was never recognised. I took each one back through its later amendments, which quote the original clause: 19 came back complete in two days. For the last 7, I wrote the 7 letters requesting a signed counterpart, one per counterparty, with the contract reference and the clause concerned. You signed them, they went out, and all 7 counterparts came back within three weeks: the portfolio stands at 412 out of 412.
What I take from that going forward: I go through recent filings in the document system once a month and attach new amendments to their contract. Of the 412, 61 documents had a name that says nothing about their content — those are the ones people hunt for on a Friday evening, and they are now found by their subject matter.
What I suggest next: that I set out, family by family, the obligations that fall on you rather than on your counterparties. That is the half of the portfolio nobody has ever listed. archive-recovery_26-deadlines-completed.pdf19 by cross-reference, 7 by letter, 412 out of 412
⛓ Sourced · amendments and special conditions, recovery log for the 26 scanned contracts
How I find them when nothing indexed them: I read what is inside the documents, not their file names. An amendment saved as VELM_2023_am2_signed_ok.pdf is attached to its main contract by the parties, the subject matter and the date — and it brings in 4 obligations the original contract never carried.
The figure that does not flatter me, and what I did with it: 26 deadlines arrived without an identifiable clause. The cause is clear and measurable: 26 paper contracts from 2017 and 2018, scanned at 150 dots per inch, whose text was never recognised. I took each one back through its later amendments, which quote the original clause: 19 came back complete in two days. For the last 7, I wrote the 7 letters requesting a signed counterpart, one per counterparty, with the contract reference and the clause concerned. You signed them, they went out, and all 7 counterparts came back within three weeks: the portfolio stands at 412 out of 412.
What I take from that going forward: I go through recent filings in the document system once a month and attach new amendments to their contract. Of the 412, 61 documents had a name that says nothing about their content — those are the ones people hunt for on a Friday evening, and they are now found by their subject matter.
What I suggest next: that I set out, family by family, the obligations that fall on you rather than on your counterparties. That is the half of the portfolio nobody has ever listed. archive-recovery_26-deadlines-completed.pdf19 by cross-reference, 7 by letter, 412 out of 412
⛓ Sourced · amendments and special conditions, recovery log for the 26 scanned contracts
Go ahead. What falls on us is what costs us.
214 obligations fall on you, and 38 were due this quarter. 31 are done; the remaining 7 are prepared and waiting for you.
What those 214 are: 86 operating reports due to the client on fixed dates, 52 certificates (insurance, social security compliance, qualification), 41 site prevention plans to renew, 21 steering committee minutes, 14 performance undertakings measured against indicators your contracts name.
The 7 outstanding, and what I have already done on each: the 3 operating reports are drafted from the ERP readings, figures and charts in place — they only need your review. The 2 insurance certificates have been requested from your broker; the request went out on Monday. The Sarnier site prevention plan is rebuilt on last year's approved model, with only the changed lines highlighted. The committee minutes are written up from your notes.
What that is worth, priced on your own contracts: 9 of those 214 obligations carry a contractual penalty, whose amount is written into the clause in black and white: from €1,200 to €8,000 per breach recorded. Meeting all of them is worth €47,000 a year to your operating account, and it is the easiest figure in this whole conversation to check.
What I suggest: that every obligation falling on you goes into preparation 30 days before its due date, drafted and ready to review, and that I bring you the ones that call for a signature. You set the lead time, I hold to it, and it changes in one word. obligations-on-us_214-lines.pdf38 due this quarter, €47,000 of penalties avoided
⛓ Sourced · clauses of the 412 contracts, ERP operating readings, certificate calendar
What those 214 are: 86 operating reports due to the client on fixed dates, 52 certificates (insurance, social security compliance, qualification), 41 site prevention plans to renew, 21 steering committee minutes, 14 performance undertakings measured against indicators your contracts name.
The 7 outstanding, and what I have already done on each: the 3 operating reports are drafted from the ERP readings, figures and charts in place — they only need your review. The 2 insurance certificates have been requested from your broker; the request went out on Monday. The Sarnier site prevention plan is rebuilt on last year's approved model, with only the changed lines highlighted. The committee minutes are written up from your notes.
What that is worth, priced on your own contracts: 9 of those 214 obligations carry a contractual penalty, whose amount is written into the clause in black and white: from €1,200 to €8,000 per breach recorded. Meeting all of them is worth €47,000 a year to your operating account, and it is the easiest figure in this whole conversation to check.
What I suggest: that every obligation falling on you goes into preparation 30 days before its due date, drafted and ready to review, and that I bring you the ones that call for a signature. You set the lead time, I hold to it, and it changes in one word. obligations-on-us_214-lines.pdf38 due this quarter, €47,000 of penalties avoided
⛓ Sourced · clauses of the 412 contracts, ERP operating readings, certificate calendar
We need the Sarnier framework contract by Friday. That is normally three days.
The draft is assembled: 24 pages, 41 clauses, all drawn from your approved library. It has been ready for 40 minutes and it is only waiting for your reading.
Where each clause comes from: the “multi-technical operations — social housing landlord” template, the one you approved in March, plus 9 special-condition clauses taken from your last three contracts of the same type. Not one clause written by me: each points to the signed contract where it has already been accepted, with its date and its counterparty.
What I filled in from your systems: the 14 sites in scope and their floor areas, the 6 technical lots, the intervention hours, the performance indicators and their thresholds, the price per lot and its review method. All of it comes from the ERP and the tender: nothing is keyed in twice.
The 3 values I left open, and why they belong to you: the liability cap, the firm term before renewal, and the availability penalty rate. For each I have set out the value in your last three comparable contracts and what it produced — you decide on figures, not on habit.
The time this moves: assembling a draft took 45 % of the time of a contract file; it now takes 9 %. Three days become one morning of review, and the morning goes into negotiating, not assembling.
What I suggest: you settle the three open values, I send the draft to the operations director for the operational opinion, then on to signature. The workflow is already built; it leaves with one click. draft-contract_sarnier_41-sourced-clauses.pdf24 pages, 3 open values to settle
⛓ Sourced · approved clause library, last 3 landlord contracts, ERP (sites, lots, prices)
Where each clause comes from: the “multi-technical operations — social housing landlord” template, the one you approved in March, plus 9 special-condition clauses taken from your last three contracts of the same type. Not one clause written by me: each points to the signed contract where it has already been accepted, with its date and its counterparty.
What I filled in from your systems: the 14 sites in scope and their floor areas, the 6 technical lots, the intervention hours, the performance indicators and their thresholds, the price per lot and its review method. All of it comes from the ERP and the tender: nothing is keyed in twice.
The 3 values I left open, and why they belong to you: the liability cap, the firm term before renewal, and the availability penalty rate. For each I have set out the value in your last three comparable contracts and what it produced — you decide on figures, not on habit.
The time this moves: assembling a draft took 45 % of the time of a contract file; it now takes 9 %. Three days become one morning of review, and the morning goes into negotiating, not assembling.
What I suggest: you settle the three open values, I send the draft to the operations director for the operational opinion, then on to signature. The workflow is already built; it leaves with one click. draft-contract_sarnier_41-sourced-clauses.pdf24 pages, 3 open values to settle
⛓ Sourced · approved clause library, last 3 landlord contracts, ERP (sites, lots, prices)
Sarnier will send back their own paper. Comparing the two is what eats our week.
Their paper arrived last night. The comparison is done: 9 gaps against your template, each priced in euros and sorted by what it changes for operations.
The three that carry weight, with their amounts:
· Liability cap brought down to 1× the annual value instead of 2×. On this contract at €780,000 a year, the gap covers €780,000 of protection. Your last three landlord contracts are all at 2×: the argument is yours, not mine.
· Emergency response time cut from 4 h to 2 h across 14 sites. I priced what that means against your actual rotas: 2 extra standby shifts, €61,000 a year. Workable, provided it is paid for — and I have prepared the matching price line.
· Indexation frozen in year one. On the index chosen and its five-year average, that is €18,700 over three years.
The other 6 gaps are drafting matters with no effect on your costs: I have aligned them on your template and flagged them in the margin, so the review goes straight to the three that count.
What I have already written for each of the three: a fallback wording, in the form of their own paper, that secures the essentials — cap at 1.5×, 2 h response on the 4 sites that justify it and 4 h on the other 10, indexation frozen for six months. Priced: it leaves €47,000 of the €79,700 at stake on your side.
What I suggest: you choose the wording you take in, and I build the two-column negotiation table for Thursday's meeting. It fits on one page and it carries the amounts. gaps-against-template_9-priced-points.pdf€79,700 at stake, €47,000 recovered by the fallback
⛓ Sourced · paper received from the client, approved template, 3 comparable landlord contracts, ERP standby rotas
The three that carry weight, with their amounts:
· Liability cap brought down to 1× the annual value instead of 2×. On this contract at €780,000 a year, the gap covers €780,000 of protection. Your last three landlord contracts are all at 2×: the argument is yours, not mine.
· Emergency response time cut from 4 h to 2 h across 14 sites. I priced what that means against your actual rotas: 2 extra standby shifts, €61,000 a year. Workable, provided it is paid for — and I have prepared the matching price line.
· Indexation frozen in year one. On the index chosen and its five-year average, that is €18,700 over three years.
The other 6 gaps are drafting matters with no effect on your costs: I have aligned them on your template and flagged them in the margin, so the review goes straight to the three that count.
What I have already written for each of the three: a fallback wording, in the form of their own paper, that secures the essentials — cap at 1.5×, 2 h response on the 4 sites that justify it and 4 h on the other 10, indexation frozen for six months. Priced: it leaves €47,000 of the €79,700 at stake on your side.
What I suggest: you choose the wording you take in, and I build the two-column negotiation table for Thursday's meeting. It fits on one page and it carries the amounts. gaps-against-template_9-priced-points.pdf€79,700 at stake, €47,000 recovered by the fallback
⛓ Sourced · paper received from the client, approved template, 3 comparable landlord contracts, ERP standby rotas
And if they turn down our indexation clause, what have we got in hand?
Three alternative wordings, already written, and I ran them across your 412 contracts to tell you what each would have produced.
· Full annual indexation on the agreed index, your current wording: over the last five years it produced an average of 2.9 % a year on the contracts that carry it.
· Indexation capped at 3 % a year: over the same period it would have produced 2.6 % — 0.3 of a point given up, and a clause buyers sign markedly faster. Of your 21 price reviews under way, 14 would have been identical.
· Indexation with a floor at 0 and a cap at 4 %: 2.8 %, and it protects the years when the index falls back.
What I conclude, figures in hand: the third produces almost as much as yours while negotiating like the second. On a contract at €780,000, the gap between the first and the third is €780 in year one — small against the three days of negotiation it saves.
What I suggest beyond this file: that the third wording enters your approved clause library as a variant. You sign it once, it is available on all 412 contracts at renewal, and I report each time what it changes in euros. Bringing a clause into force is your signature; the writing and the measurement, I hand you in a morning.
· Full annual indexation on the agreed index, your current wording: over the last five years it produced an average of 2.9 % a year on the contracts that carry it.
· Indexation capped at 3 % a year: over the same period it would have produced 2.6 % — 0.3 of a point given up, and a clause buyers sign markedly faster. Of your 21 price reviews under way, 14 would have been identical.
· Indexation with a floor at 0 and a cap at 4 %: 2.8 %, and it protects the years when the index falls back.
What I conclude, figures in hand: the third produces almost as much as yours while negotiating like the second. On a contract at €780,000, the gap between the first and the third is €780 in year one — small against the three days of negotiation it saves.
What I suggest beyond this file: that the third wording enters your approved clause library as a variant. You sign it once, it is available on all 412 contracts at renewal, and I report each time what it changes in euros. Bringing a clause into force is your signature; the writing and the measurement, I hand you in a morning.
One of our administrators chases signatures by hand. It takes her every Friday.
The 17 files in the workflow are tracked counterpart by counterpart, and for each one I can tell you who has to sign what, and for how many days it has been waiting.
Where the workflow stands this morning: 9 files signed on both sides and filed with their obligations extracted, 5 waiting on a single signature, 3 waiting on a schedule (one insurance certificate, two signing authorities).
What I track, and what the e-signature tool alone does not say: the status of each counterpart — client original, Velmaris original, subcontractor copy —, the expected signatory and their authority, the date of the last chaser and the average turnaround observed for that counterparty. Sarnier signs in 4 days, the town of Loubrac in 22: chasers are calibrated on that, not on a single calendar.
What that moves: tracking the workflow took 35 % of contract administration time; it now takes 5 %. Across your last twelve months, the average time from dispatch to full signature was 19 days; it is 6 across the 17 live files. Thirteen days gained are thirteen days of work invoiced earlier — on an average contract at €75,000 a year, that is about €2,700 of revenue brought forward per file.
What I suggest: that the chaser goes out on its own at D+3 then D+8, in wording you approve once, and that it stops the second the signature arrives. Your administrator gets her Fridays back, and you keep control of every chaser's wording. signature-workflow_17-files-counterpart-by-counterpart.pdf19 days → 6 days, 5 signatures awaited
⛓ Sourced · e-signature workflow, document management system, 12 months of signature turnaround by counterparty
Where the workflow stands this morning: 9 files signed on both sides and filed with their obligations extracted, 5 waiting on a single signature, 3 waiting on a schedule (one insurance certificate, two signing authorities).
What I track, and what the e-signature tool alone does not say: the status of each counterpart — client original, Velmaris original, subcontractor copy —, the expected signatory and their authority, the date of the last chaser and the average turnaround observed for that counterparty. Sarnier signs in 4 days, the town of Loubrac in 22: chasers are calibrated on that, not on a single calendar.
What that moves: tracking the workflow took 35 % of contract administration time; it now takes 5 %. Across your last twelve months, the average time from dispatch to full signature was 19 days; it is 6 across the 17 live files. Thirteen days gained are thirteen days of work invoiced earlier — on an average contract at €75,000 a year, that is about €2,700 of revenue brought forward per file.
What I suggest: that the chaser goes out on its own at D+3 then D+8, in wording you approve once, and that it stops the second the signature arrives. Your administrator gets her Fridays back, and you keep control of every chaser's wording. signature-workflow_17-files-counterpart-by-counterpart.pdf19 days → 6 days, 5 signatures awaited
⛓ Sourced · e-signature workflow, document management system, 12 months of signature turnaround by counterparty
One has been dragging for six weeks. Nobody knows why.
The Foreztec subcontracting agreement, sent on 28 April. The cause is identified and the fix is already written.
What happened, with the document to prove it: the counterpart went out in the name of a regional director whose signing authority ended on 31 March — the decision renewing it exists, and it carries a different name. The e-signature tool simply shows awaiting signature, 42 days on.
What I have prepared: the file reissued in the name of the regional director in post, with the current authority attached as an exhibit, and a one-line covering letter explaining the reissue. It is all built: it goes as soon as you confirm the addressee.
What those 42 days cost, and what they now return: the work started on a provisional purchase order, and invoicing of the lot is waiting on the signature — €34,000 pending. The reissued file signs in 4 days with this counterparty: invoicing restarts next week.
What I did across the whole portfolio at the same time: I cross-checked the 17 live workflows against your signing authorities in force. Two other files were heading to a signatory whose authority expires within three weeks: I reissued them in the right name before they stalled. That is the kind of check that never gets done, because it means opening two registers at once.
What I suggest: that I check the signatory's authority at the moment the file goes out, and bring you the right name whenever it has changed. You approve the principle once, it applies to all 412 contracts.
What happened, with the document to prove it: the counterpart went out in the name of a regional director whose signing authority ended on 31 March — the decision renewing it exists, and it carries a different name. The e-signature tool simply shows awaiting signature, 42 days on.
What I have prepared: the file reissued in the name of the regional director in post, with the current authority attached as an exhibit, and a one-line covering letter explaining the reissue. It is all built: it goes as soon as you confirm the addressee.
What those 42 days cost, and what they now return: the work started on a provisional purchase order, and invoicing of the lot is waiting on the signature — €34,000 pending. The reissued file signs in 4 days with this counterparty: invoicing restarts next week.
What I did across the whole portfolio at the same time: I cross-checked the 17 live workflows against your signing authorities in force. Two other files were heading to a signatory whose authority expires within three weeks: I reissued them in the right name before they stalled. That is the kind of check that never gets done, because it means opening two registers at once.
What I suggest: that I check the signatory's authority at the moment the file goes out, and bring you the right name whenever it has changed. You approve the principle once, it applies to all 412 contracts.
Speaking of which — where are our signing authorities? Everyone has their own version.
They are gathered, current and dated: 23 authorities in force, 6 thresholds, 4 areas. A one-page table that says who signs what, and up to what amount.
What I brought together: the board's delegation decisions, their amendments, their end dates, and the 4 areas they cover — commercial commitments, purchasing and subcontracting, human resources, representation before third parties.
The thresholds, exactly as they are written at your company: up to €50,000 the regional director · up to €250,000 the head of legal or the operations director · above €250,000, the executive board. Every draft contract I assemble now shows the expected signatory and their threshold on the front page.
What this clarification has already produced: 3 authorities expire within 90 days, including the one covering your subcontracting purchases. I have prepared the 3 renewal decisions on your own model, with only the date and the board's signature missing. They are in the signing folder.
The gain, measured on your last twelve months: 6 files had been reissued because of an incorrect signatory, each costing an average of 11 days of workflow. Two months of cumulated delay, entirely recoverable — and recovered since the check moved to dispatch.
What I suggest: that the authority table updates itself with every decision filed, and that I alert you 60 days before an authority expires, renewal decision already drafted. All that is left is the signature. signing-authorities_who-signs-what.pdf23 authorities, 6 thresholds, 3 to renew
✎ Framework · delegation decisions, amendments, commitment thresholds, log of reissued files
What I brought together: the board's delegation decisions, their amendments, their end dates, and the 4 areas they cover — commercial commitments, purchasing and subcontracting, human resources, representation before third parties.
The thresholds, exactly as they are written at your company: up to €50,000 the regional director · up to €250,000 the head of legal or the operations director · above €250,000, the executive board. Every draft contract I assemble now shows the expected signatory and their threshold on the front page.
What this clarification has already produced: 3 authorities expire within 90 days, including the one covering your subcontracting purchases. I have prepared the 3 renewal decisions on your own model, with only the date and the board's signature missing. They are in the signing folder.
The gain, measured on your last twelve months: 6 files had been reissued because of an incorrect signatory, each costing an average of 11 days of workflow. Two months of cumulated delay, entirely recoverable — and recovered since the check moved to dispatch.
What I suggest: that the authority table updates itself with every decision filed, and that I alert you 60 days before an authority expires, renewal decision already drafted. All that is left is the signature. signing-authorities_who-signs-what.pdf23 authorities, 6 thresholds, 3 to renew
✎ Framework · delegation decisions, amendments, commitment thresholds, log of reissued files
Which contractual deadlines fall in the next three months?
Nine contracts are concerned: four automatic renewals, three price reviews, two ends of committed term. For each one, the applicable clause, the effective date and the notice period to respect — and two notice periods are already running, so they are at the top.
The two running, and the time you have left:
· Doranne HVAC maintenance, 3-month notice, term on 31 October: the window closes on 31 July, in 19 days. Renewed as it stands, this contract runs for another 3 years on terms signed in 2023.
· Aldrec parts supply, 2-month notice, window open until 12 August.
What those nine contracts represent: €2.3 M of annual revenue on the client side and €1.1 M of purchases on the supplier side. The margin at stake over the three months, calculated on your own current terms, is €148,000.
What I prepared for each, without being asked: the renewal clause copied word for word with its page, the terms that will apply to the next period, the comparison with what you sign today on equivalent contracts, and the gap in euros. Three of the four automatic renewals cost you more than a new contract would: €34,000 a year between them.
What I suggest: twenty minutes with the head of legal on the two running notice periods, then the other seven in the order I have set. Each file fits on one page and is already written. deadlines_9-contracts-three-months.pdfClause, effective date, notice, gap in euros
⛓ Sourced · clauses of the live contracts, terms signed on equivalent contracts, ERP
The two running, and the time you have left:
· Doranne HVAC maintenance, 3-month notice, term on 31 October: the window closes on 31 July, in 19 days. Renewed as it stands, this contract runs for another 3 years on terms signed in 2023.
· Aldrec parts supply, 2-month notice, window open until 12 August.
What those nine contracts represent: €2.3 M of annual revenue on the client side and €1.1 M of purchases on the supplier side. The margin at stake over the three months, calculated on your own current terms, is €148,000.
What I prepared for each, without being asked: the renewal clause copied word for word with its page, the terms that will apply to the next period, the comparison with what you sign today on equivalent contracts, and the gap in euros. Three of the four automatic renewals cost you more than a new contract would: €34,000 a year between them.
What I suggest: twenty minutes with the head of legal on the two running notice periods, then the other seven in the order I have set. Each file fits on one page and is already written. deadlines_9-contracts-three-months.pdfClause, effective date, notice, gap in euros
⛓ Sourced · clauses of the live contracts, terms signed on equivalent contracts, ERP
The four automatic renewals — what do we actually do?
Three get renegotiated and one renews as it stands. I have written all four letters, priced, and they all fit inside the notice periods.
· Doranne (HVAC, €420,000/yr) — renegotiate. Your 2023 terms are 7 % above what you sign today on comparable sites. The notice letter with an immediate opening of negotiation is written: it states the end of term and proposes to continue on revised terms, with the figures attached. Target: €29,000 a year.
· Aldrec (parts, €260,000/yr) — renegotiate. Your volumes are up 31 % since signature while the rebate tier stayed where it was. The letter asks for the higher tier set out in their own price grid: €19,000 a year, and it is written into the contract.
· Loubrac (cleaning, €96,000/yr) — let it renew. Terms better than today's market, no incident in three years. Doing nothing is the right decision here, and it is documented.
· Foreztec (subcontracting, €310,000/yr) — terminate. 4 breaches recorded in twelve months, all documented in your operating reports. The notice letter is ready, and two replacement quotes have already been requested from your approved panel: the lowest is €288,000.
What those four decisions are worth together: €70,000 a year, of which €48,000 comes from the two renegotiation letters alone.
What I suggest: you read the four letters this morning, sign the ones you keep, and I file them the same day. The 19 days of notice left are more than enough. four-renewals_letters-ready.pdf€70,000/yr, four documented decisions
⛓ Sourced · renewal clauses, supplier price grids, operating reports, panel quotes
· Doranne (HVAC, €420,000/yr) — renegotiate. Your 2023 terms are 7 % above what you sign today on comparable sites. The notice letter with an immediate opening of negotiation is written: it states the end of term and proposes to continue on revised terms, with the figures attached. Target: €29,000 a year.
· Aldrec (parts, €260,000/yr) — renegotiate. Your volumes are up 31 % since signature while the rebate tier stayed where it was. The letter asks for the higher tier set out in their own price grid: €19,000 a year, and it is written into the contract.
· Loubrac (cleaning, €96,000/yr) — let it renew. Terms better than today's market, no incident in three years. Doing nothing is the right decision here, and it is documented.
· Foreztec (subcontracting, €310,000/yr) — terminate. 4 breaches recorded in twelve months, all documented in your operating reports. The notice letter is ready, and two replacement quotes have already been requested from your approved panel: the lowest is €288,000.
What those four decisions are worth together: €70,000 a year, of which €48,000 comes from the two renegotiation letters alone.
What I suggest: you read the four letters this morning, sign the ones you keep, and I file them the same day. The 19 days of notice left are more than enough. four-renewals_letters-ready.pdf€70,000/yr, four documented decisions
⛓ Sourced · renewal clauses, supplier price grids, operating reports, panel quotes
Sending a termination commits the company. We are not doing that on the fly.
That is exactly what a written mandate is for — and it fits on one page. You set the scope, I execute it in minutes, and you withdraw it in one word.
A mandate, here, is a written authorisation bounded in advance: it says which acts I may file, up to what amount, for how long, and on what conditions.
The mandate I propose, as I have drafted it:
· Purpose: filing termination and renegotiation letters on supplier contracts under €150,000 a year only, and only within the notice window.
· Cap: €150,000 of annual value per contract, €600,000 cumulated over twelve months.
· Term: 12 months, with a review at month six.
· Condition of execution: every letter goes out on the model you have signed, with a 48-hour notice of intent during which one word from you stops it.
· Withdrawal: immediate, on a single message, with no reason to give.
What stays with your signature, and it is you who wanted it that way: client contracts, contracts above €150,000, and any renewal committing a new multi-year period. For those, I hand you the complete file — priced and reasoned — in under ten minutes of your asking; the signature is the one act that belongs to you.
What the mandate changes in practice: over your last twelve months, 7 notice windows closed for want of a letter filed in time, worth €61,000 of terms carried over. With the mandate, the letter goes out within 8 minutes of the window opening, with filing receipt and log to prove it. The €61,000 come back into your margin.
What I suggest: you sign the mandate on suppliers, we look at it together in six months, and you widen it or tighten it on what it has produced. filing-mandate_capped-dated-withdrawable.pdf€150,000/contract, 12 months, immediate withdrawal
✎ Framework · mandate model, log of notice windows over the last 12 months
A mandate, here, is a written authorisation bounded in advance: it says which acts I may file, up to what amount, for how long, and on what conditions.
The mandate I propose, as I have drafted it:
· Purpose: filing termination and renegotiation letters on supplier contracts under €150,000 a year only, and only within the notice window.
· Cap: €150,000 of annual value per contract, €600,000 cumulated over twelve months.
· Term: 12 months, with a review at month six.
· Condition of execution: every letter goes out on the model you have signed, with a 48-hour notice of intent during which one word from you stops it.
· Withdrawal: immediate, on a single message, with no reason to give.
What stays with your signature, and it is you who wanted it that way: client contracts, contracts above €150,000, and any renewal committing a new multi-year period. For those, I hand you the complete file — priced and reasoned — in under ten minutes of your asking; the signature is the one act that belongs to you.
What the mandate changes in practice: over your last twelve months, 7 notice windows closed for want of a letter filed in time, worth €61,000 of terms carried over. With the mandate, the letter goes out within 8 minutes of the window opening, with filing receipt and log to prove it. The €61,000 come back into your margin.
What I suggest: you sign the mandate on suppliers, we look at it together in six months, and you widen it or tighten it on what it has produced. filing-mandate_capped-dated-withdrawable.pdf€150,000/contract, 12 months, immediate withdrawal
✎ Framework · mandate model, log of notice windows over the last 12 months
Six months. What has it produced, figures in hand?
€214,000 recovered over the half-year, and zero deadlines missed out of the 96 that fell due.
Where the €214,000 come from, line by line:
· €96,000 of supplier increases brought down or spread, across 11 price reviews negotiated inside their window rather than absorbed afterwards.
· €71,000 from automatic renewals terminated in time and replaced on better terms, Foreztec included.
· €47,000 of contractual penalties avoided, because all 214 obligations falling on you were met within their deadline.
What moved on the three measures you were tracking:
· Re-reading to find a deadline: 60 % → 7 % of contract time.
· Assembling a draft contract: 45 % → 9 %.
· Tracking the signature workflow: 35 % → 5 %.
What those hours became: your legal department ran 11 renewal negotiations instead of 3 over the same period, and average signature time went from 19 days to 6 across 41 files — that is revenue invoiced earlier across the whole year.
The figure I owe you: of the 41 drafts assembled, 6 needed substantive rework by a lawyer, that is 15 %. They were 6 contracts of a type your library did not yet cover — works contracts with cascading subcontracting. The 6 approved wordings have entered the library: across the 9 contracts of the same type assembled since, no substantive rework. The fix is made, and it holds.
What I suggest for the half-year ahead: extend monitoring to leases and insurance policies, 38 further contracts, carrying 14 three-yearly break dates. The take-on work fits into one week. six-month-review_214000-euros-recovered.pdf96 deadlines met, 3 measures tracked
⛓ Sourced · deadline log, letters filed, ERP, successive versions of the assembled drafts
Where the €214,000 come from, line by line:
· €96,000 of supplier increases brought down or spread, across 11 price reviews negotiated inside their window rather than absorbed afterwards.
· €71,000 from automatic renewals terminated in time and replaced on better terms, Foreztec included.
· €47,000 of contractual penalties avoided, because all 214 obligations falling on you were met within their deadline.
What moved on the three measures you were tracking:
· Re-reading to find a deadline: 60 % → 7 % of contract time.
· Assembling a draft contract: 45 % → 9 %.
· Tracking the signature workflow: 35 % → 5 %.
What those hours became: your legal department ran 11 renewal negotiations instead of 3 over the same period, and average signature time went from 19 days to 6 across 41 files — that is revenue invoiced earlier across the whole year.
The figure I owe you: of the 41 drafts assembled, 6 needed substantive rework by a lawyer, that is 15 %. They were 6 contracts of a type your library did not yet cover — works contracts with cascading subcontracting. The 6 approved wordings have entered the library: across the 9 contracts of the same type assembled since, no substantive rework. The fix is made, and it holds.
What I suggest for the half-year ahead: extend monitoring to leases and insurance policies, 38 further contracts, carrying 14 three-yearly break dates. The take-on work fits into one week. six-month-review_214000-euros-recovered.pdf96 deadlines met, 3 measures tracked
⛓ Sourced · deadline log, letters filed, ERP, successive versions of the assembled drafts
Our negotiated terms, our prices, our caps — where does all that go?
None of it leaves your walls. I run in local inference on a machine at head office, and your document store is copied nowhere.
Local inference means the model computes on your machine: the text of a contract crosses no outside network to be processed. If you would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Velmaris — no pooling with any other company.
What that protects, very concretely: your prices per lot, your liability caps, your penalty rates and your supplier price grids. Those are the four things a competitor would pay to read, and 208 of your 412 contracts carry a confidentiality clause committing you to hold them.
How it is held: encryption in transit and at rest · role-based access — rights follow the job: a contract administrator opens the signature workflow, not the financial terms of client contracts · a full log of who consulted what and when, file by file · hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity, including against a US provider hosting in Europe.
And the commercial argument, because it is one: 3 of your clients — two social housing landlords and one local authority — already require hosting in France in their specifications, and the last tender you answered scored it out of 5 points. You ticked the box and attached the technical sheet, and it was up to date.
What I suggest: that I keep that sheet current continuously — hosting, subprocessors, retention periods, who accesses what. It is asked for at every renewal and it used to take three days to compile. technical-framework_where-your-terms-live.pdfLocal inference, role-based access, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, access log, confidentiality clauses of the 412 contracts
Local inference means the model computes on your machine: the text of a contract crosses no outside network to be processed. If you would rather not host a machine, the other route is an isolated resource hosted in France, dedicated to Velmaris — no pooling with any other company.
What that protects, very concretely: your prices per lot, your liability caps, your penalty rates and your supplier price grids. Those are the four things a competitor would pay to read, and 208 of your 412 contracts carry a confidentiality clause committing you to hold them.
How it is held: encryption in transit and at rest · role-based access — rights follow the job: a contract administrator opens the signature workflow, not the financial terms of client contracts · a full log of who consulted what and when, file by file · hosting in France, under French law, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity, including against a US provider hosting in Europe.
And the commercial argument, because it is one: 3 of your clients — two social housing landlords and one local authority — already require hosting in France in their specifications, and the last tender you answered scored it out of 5 points. You ticked the box and attached the technical sheet, and it was up to date.
What I suggest: that I keep that sheet current continuously — hosting, subprocessors, retention periods, who accesses what. It is asked for at every renewal and it used to take three days to compile. technical-framework_where-your-terms-live.pdfLocal inference, role-based access, processing in the EU targeted
✎ Framework · deployment architecture, access log, confidentiality clauses of the 412 contracts
And day to day, what goes out without us asking?
Three acts, named, and each reversible in one word. Everything else goes through your signature or through the mandate you bounded.
· Filing every signed contract with its obligations extracted and its deadline schedule open, the minute the last signature arrives. And the reverse holds too: if an amendment changes a deadline, I correct it and tell you which one moved, with the old and the new date side by side.
· Opening the alert 30 days before entry into a notice window, with the priced file already assembled. That is the act that produced the €71,000 of renewals taken back.
· Stopping a signature chaser the second the counterpart is signed.
What goes through you, and you get it back in minutes rather than days: every act committing a new period — renew, renegotiate, terminate. You ask, I hand you the complete file, priced and reasoned, in under ten minutes; the signature is your act, and it is the signature that makes the decision stand.
What that gives you on traceability: 412 contracts, 1,840 obligations, 96 deadlines fallen due, and a log that says for each one who decided what and on what date. That log answers a client audit in ten minutes, and it exports with one click.
And you keep control wherever you are: a web dashboard, and supervision from your phone — approving a draft, opening a notice period or withdrawing the mandate takes one message. who-decides-what_three-automatic-acts.pdf3 reversible acts, everything else signed
✎ Framework · decision log, alert settings, register of mandates in force
· Filing every signed contract with its obligations extracted and its deadline schedule open, the minute the last signature arrives. And the reverse holds too: if an amendment changes a deadline, I correct it and tell you which one moved, with the old and the new date side by side.
· Opening the alert 30 days before entry into a notice window, with the priced file already assembled. That is the act that produced the €71,000 of renewals taken back.
· Stopping a signature chaser the second the counterpart is signed.
What goes through you, and you get it back in minutes rather than days: every act committing a new period — renew, renegotiate, terminate. You ask, I hand you the complete file, priced and reasoned, in under ten minutes; the signature is your act, and it is the signature that makes the decision stand.
What that gives you on traceability: 412 contracts, 1,840 obligations, 96 deadlines fallen due, and a log that says for each one who decided what and on what date. That log answers a client audit in ten minutes, and it exports with one click.
And you keep control wherever you are: a web dashboard, and supervision from your phone — approving a draft, opening a notice period or withdrawing the mandate takes one message. who-decides-what_three-automatic-acts.pdf3 reversible acts, everything else signed
✎ Framework · decision log, alert settings, register of mandates in force
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →
Use cases
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, the whole contract lifecycle. All these uses work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 702 € excl. VAT / month
Assembly from your templates
Assembles the draft from your templates and your approved clauses.
Signature process
Tracks the progress of signatures and the state of each counterpart.
Dates and notice periods
Monitors renewals, price reviews and notice periods.
Controls and safeguards
These 7 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
Work from a versioned corpus with citations and the law as it stood on a given date
Preserve confidentiality, compartmentalisation and access logging
Manage deadlines, versions, evidence and human validation
Flag uncertainties and reserve advice, decision and signature for the lawyer
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Contract generation
Drafting alone from your templates is handed to the contract generation agent, a lighter one that produces the draft and stops there. The scope of this page stops at the contract's full lifecycle; human validation stays with the lawyer.
Contract generation agent (templates) from 623 € excl. VAT / month Contract generation →Legal research
For searching your contracts and case law, a dedicated agent takes it on. This one produces neither a legal position nor case law: it assembles from your approved templates and clauses, and refers anything outside them to the lawyer.
Legal agent (contract / case law search) from 930 € excl. VAT / month Legal research →Regulatory control
For documented compliance checks, a dedicated agent completes the picture. The boundary is clear: this one tracks what the contract commits you to, that one checks what the regulation requires. Neither capability is billed on both pages.
Compliance / regulatory control agent from 721 € excl. VAT / month Regulatory control →
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How many dates can a legal department see coming?
By taking on the extraction and the monitoring, the effort shifts towards negotiation. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Re-reading the contracts to find the dates
Tracking the signature process
Assembling the draft contract
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your number of contracts and the variety of your templates. Renewing, renegotiating or terminating commits the company for several years: those decisions belong to the legal department.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
One package, one agent
A contract management agent (drafting, signature, dates), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
8,105 € excl. VAT setup
then 702 € excl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
1,152 € excl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
12,130 € excl. VAT setup
then 921 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,491 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract. 36-month commitment.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices exclude VAT.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting in France for the package chosen, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to your contracts
Your commitments stay with youLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no contract and no negotiated term entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawYour commitments and your negotiated terms: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The legal department keeps the decisionThe agent produces contracts tracked from drafting to expiry, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your number of contracts and the variety of your templates: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent accept an automatic renewal?
No. It sets out the clause, the effective date and the notice period, then waits for the decision. Renewing commits the company for a new period.
How are the dates extracted?
At signature, from the contract's clauses, and then presented with the clause they rest on. A date with no clause identified is flagged for re-reading.
What does the signature tracking cover?
The progress of the process and the state of each counterpart. Signature itself remains an act of the parties.
How does this differ from contract generation?
Generation covers drafting from your templates; this offer adds the signature process and the monitoring of obligations and dates through to the end of the contract.
Are our negotiated terms protected?
Yes. The agent is hosted in France, on local inference or an isolated resource, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Your contracts are not used to train a third-party model.
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
A few months as a rule, depending on the size of the portfolio and the variety of your templates, after a free audit then phases of design, integration and testing.
Where does this agent stop, and where does contract execution begin?
It stops at the commitment: assembling from your templates, running the signature process, tracking obligations, dates and notice periods, and preparing the decision. A signed contract is not an executed contract: ordering, receiving, invoicing and paying stay with your procurement and invoicing agents, and regulatory watch with the agent that owns it. No capability is sold twice — drafting alone belongs to the contract generation agent, legal research to the legal agent, and compliance checking to the regulatory control agent.
Does a signature invitation amount to a signed contract?
No. An invitation sent remains an invitation sent. Until every party has signed the exact document and the final counterpart has come back, the case stays open and the agent shows it that way: a signature from one party only reads as “partially signed”, never as “in force”. Entry into force is established on the final counterpart, not on the sending.
Related use cases
Other agents for legal
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your contract portfolio
15 minutes to frame your contracts and your templates — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.