When Contracts Answer Back: AI Contract Management in Microsoft 365

1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,780
A plain question went in. Natural language, no keywords.

2
00:00:03,780 --> 00:00:07,820
It answered, with clauses, with dates, with sources.

3
00:00:07,820 --> 00:00:09,540
Nothing flashy happened.

4
00:00:09,540 --> 00:00:14,340
This isn't a demo, it's an investigation into a capability that was already there.

5
00:00:14,340 --> 00:00:17,660
Inside your tenant, governed by your rules.

6
00:00:17,660 --> 00:00:20,780
Contracts stopped acting like files and started answering back.

7
00:00:20,780 --> 00:00:26,580
No migrations, no new platform, just the same share point, now asked differently.

8
00:00:26,580 --> 00:00:31,320
We'll show what the system did, what the logs showed, and what changed, and what didn't.

9
00:00:31,320 --> 00:00:35,080
The mistake that creates blind spots and the one switch that removes them.

10
00:00:35,080 --> 00:00:36,480
Only the question changed.

11
00:00:36,480 --> 00:00:39,080
Premise, storage versus answers.

12
00:00:39,080 --> 00:00:41,480
The hidden cost of manual search.

13
00:00:41,480 --> 00:00:43,480
Every organization has contracts.

14
00:00:43,480 --> 00:00:45,240
Hundreds, thousands.

15
00:00:45,240 --> 00:00:46,720
You already know what happens next.

16
00:00:46,720 --> 00:00:48,240
They're stored, carefully.

17
00:00:48,240 --> 00:00:51,320
Libraries, folders, subfolders.

18
00:00:51,320 --> 00:00:52,400
Then the emails start.

19
00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:53,900
Do we have an NDA with them?

20
00:00:53,900 --> 00:00:55,440
When does the MSA renew?

21
00:00:55,440 --> 00:00:57,280
Is indemnity mutual?

22
00:00:57,280 --> 00:01:00,160
Search opens, filters, stack.

23
00:01:00,160 --> 00:01:03,360
Someone rereads the same PDF for the third time this quarter.

24
00:01:03,360 --> 00:01:05,680
Most tenant street share point like a vault.

25
00:01:05,680 --> 00:01:08,400
Strong walls, clear shelves, labels everywhere.

26
00:01:08,400 --> 00:01:09,840
A good vault preserves.

27
00:01:09,840 --> 00:01:11,160
It does not respond.

28
00:01:11,160 --> 00:01:14,400
And that's the gap that quietly taxes every team.

29
00:01:14,400 --> 00:01:16,360
Latency between question and answer.

30
00:01:16,360 --> 00:01:21,280
The latency shows up as things to legal, as stale spreadsheets trying to be registers,

31
00:01:21,280 --> 00:01:26,240
as version drift when an attachment cycles through three inboxes and returns with a single

32
00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:28,560
red line, nobody noticed.

33
00:01:28,560 --> 00:01:32,680
It shows up as missed notice windows because the calendar was owned by contract set and

34
00:01:32,680 --> 00:01:35,360
that mailbox was deprovisioned last year.

35
00:01:35,360 --> 00:01:37,360
Storage is stable, answers are slow.

36
00:01:37,360 --> 00:01:39,520
The thing most people miss is simple.

37
00:01:39,520 --> 00:01:41,000
Manual search is cumulative.

38
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:43,480
Each reread is a small cost that compounds.

39
00:01:43,480 --> 00:01:45,560
Two minutes here to check governing law.

40
00:01:45,560 --> 00:01:48,280
Five minutes there to confirm a renewal term.

41
00:01:48,280 --> 00:01:50,400
It feels quick at scale, it isn't.

42
00:01:50,400 --> 00:01:54,280
Across a quarter, across a portfolio, it becomes days, days that hide inside.

43
00:01:54,280 --> 00:01:57,360
Can you just check errors originate in that fog?

44
00:01:57,360 --> 00:02:02,000
Version drift is a storage symptom disguised as a collaboration habit.

45
00:02:02,000 --> 00:02:04,160
Mist renewals aren't failures of policy.

46
00:02:04,160 --> 00:02:06,000
They're failures of detection.

47
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:07,960
Class misreads aren't about legal skill.

48
00:02:07,960 --> 00:02:12,280
They're about fatigue, context switching, and the subtle bias of, I think I remember this

49
00:02:12,280 --> 00:02:13,280
template.

50
00:02:13,280 --> 00:02:15,920
Now here's where the premise divides.

51
00:02:15,920 --> 00:02:18,520
Storage thinking asks, where is the file?

52
00:02:18,520 --> 00:02:20,960
Storage thinking optimizes for place.

53
00:02:20,960 --> 00:02:22,960
Answer thinking optimizes for precision.

54
00:02:22,960 --> 00:02:23,960
One moves boxes better.

55
00:02:23,960 --> 00:02:24,960
The other reduces questions.

56
00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:28,960
In the tenant we observed, the storage story was textbook.

57
00:02:28,960 --> 00:02:29,960
SharePoint online.

58
00:02:29,960 --> 00:02:31,960
Libraries per contract type.

59
00:02:31,960 --> 00:02:33,680
Sensitivity labels applied.

60
00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:35,880
Retention labels for record states.

61
00:02:35,880 --> 00:02:37,960
Permissions respected down to the folder.

62
00:02:37,960 --> 00:02:39,960
A drop of library for intake.

63
00:02:39,960 --> 00:02:40,960
All correct.

64
00:02:40,960 --> 00:02:41,960
All compliant.

65
00:02:41,960 --> 00:02:42,960
Nothing wrong with it.

66
00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:45,960
But every real question still depends on someone reading.

67
00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:48,960
And reading is slow.

68
00:02:48,960 --> 00:02:49,960
Why?

69
00:02:49,960 --> 00:02:51,960
Nothing new was installed.

70
00:02:51,960 --> 00:02:52,960
Matters.

71
00:02:52,960 --> 00:02:53,960
Governance.

72
00:02:53,960 --> 00:02:56,960
The contracts lived under existing permissions.

73
00:02:56,960 --> 00:02:58,960
Per view labels already in place.

74
00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:00,960
Audit logs already recording.

75
00:03:00,960 --> 00:03:03,960
Retention rules already decided by policy, not by a project.

76
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:08,960
If the answers could emerge inside that frame, without exporting, without replatforming,

77
00:03:08,960 --> 00:03:11,960
then speed would increase and risk would decrease.

78
00:03:11,960 --> 00:03:14,960
At the same time, without changing the control plane.

79
00:03:14,960 --> 00:03:16,960
That's the claim worth testing.

80
00:03:16,960 --> 00:03:19,960
The better method starts where storage ends.

81
00:03:19,960 --> 00:03:21,960
Contracts enter as documents.

82
00:03:21,960 --> 00:03:23,960
They become data without leaving SharePoint.

83
00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:25,960
Intake stays in a drop of library.

84
00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:29,960
AI document processing extracts the known truths.

85
00:03:29,960 --> 00:03:33,960
Parties, dates, renewal logic, payment terms, governing law.

86
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:34,960
Columns auto fill.

87
00:03:34,960 --> 00:03:35,960
Not a custom app.

88
00:03:35,960 --> 00:03:37,960
Not a detour to a vendor's silo.

89
00:03:37,960 --> 00:03:39,960
Just columns in the library you already had.

90
00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:41,960
The reason this works is boring and powerful.

91
00:03:41,960 --> 00:03:43,960
Column values can be asked.

92
00:03:43,960 --> 00:03:44,960
Not searched, asked.

93
00:03:44,960 --> 00:03:47,960
A question that sounds like a human question.

94
00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:51,960
Show agreements expiring in the next 60/90 days.

95
00:03:51,960 --> 00:03:54,960
Or which NDAs expire in the next 30 days.

96
00:03:54,960 --> 00:03:57,960
Or where is indemnity non-mutual?

97
00:03:57,960 --> 00:03:58,960
Answered.

98
00:03:58,960 --> 00:03:59,960
With citations.

99
00:03:59,960 --> 00:04:00,960
Not summaries.

100
00:04:00,960 --> 00:04:01,960
Not guesses.

101
00:04:01,960 --> 00:04:03,960
Pointers back to the lines that matter.

102
00:04:03,960 --> 00:04:05,960
Once answers site, trust, shifts.

103
00:04:05,960 --> 00:04:09,960
Verification stops being a full reread and becomes a click on the source.

104
00:04:09,960 --> 00:04:10,960
The cycle time collapses.

105
00:04:10,960 --> 00:04:12,960
What took days falls to minutes.

106
00:04:12,960 --> 00:04:14,960
The emails to legal taper.

107
00:04:14,960 --> 00:04:15,960
The shared trackers go quiet.

108
00:04:15,960 --> 00:04:20,960
People stop asking where the file is and start asking better questions of the files they can already access.

109
00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:23,960
The signal is subtle, fewer questions, faster decisions.

110
00:04:23,960 --> 00:04:25,960
The contracts didn't change.

111
00:04:25,960 --> 00:04:26,960
Only the question did.

112
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:28,960
And the stakes are not academic.

113
00:04:28,960 --> 00:04:30,960
Compliance requires repeatability.

114
00:04:30,960 --> 00:04:33,960
Finance requires predictability.

115
00:04:33,960 --> 00:04:37,960
Auditors require evidence that what you claim is what the system does every time.

116
00:04:37,960 --> 00:04:41,960
If the answers are grounded in your content, your labels, your audit logs.

117
00:04:41,960 --> 00:04:45,960
Then credibility rises because nothing informal is carrying the load.

118
00:04:45,960 --> 00:04:47,960
It's not a hero effort.

119
00:04:47,960 --> 00:04:48,960
It's a system behavior.

120
00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:51,960
So if storage isn't the problem, the interface to truth is.

121
00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:55,960
Keyboard search was a workaround for documents that couldn't respond.

122
00:04:55,960 --> 00:05:00,960
Natural language with citations is an interface that treats the repository as a knowledge source.

123
00:05:00,960 --> 00:05:02,960
The walls remain.

124
00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:03,960
The shelves remain.

125
00:05:03,960 --> 00:05:04,960
The labels remain.

126
00:05:04,960 --> 00:05:06,960
But the contract can now answer back.

127
00:05:06,960 --> 00:05:10,960
Inside the same room under the same lights watched by the same cameras.

128
00:05:10,960 --> 00:05:13,960
Nothing was replaced. Nothing was migrated.

129
00:05:13,960 --> 00:05:15,960
Only the question changed.

130
00:05:15,960 --> 00:05:17,960
Evidence 1. Contracts.

131
00:05:17,960 --> 00:05:18,960
Enter a stator.

132
00:05:18,960 --> 00:05:20,960
Without leaving SharePoint.

133
00:05:20,960 --> 00:05:23,960
In this case, intake looked ordinary.

134
00:05:23,960 --> 00:05:24,960
A drop-off library.

135
00:05:24,960 --> 00:05:25,960
Standard permissions.

136
00:05:25,960 --> 00:05:28,960
Drafts visible to the few who needed them.

137
00:05:28,960 --> 00:05:29,960
No email detours.

138
00:05:29,960 --> 00:05:31,960
No shared drives.

139
00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:35,960
A contract arrived and landed where contracts always land.

140
00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:37,960
What happened next wasn't a handoff.

141
00:05:37,960 --> 00:05:38,960
It was extraction.

142
00:05:38,960 --> 00:05:40,960
A.I. document processing read the file.

143
00:05:40,960 --> 00:05:41,960
Not just the title.

144
00:05:41,960 --> 00:05:42,960
Not just the file name.

145
00:05:42,960 --> 00:05:43,960
It read the agreement.

146
00:05:43,960 --> 00:05:44,960
Parties.

147
00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:45,960
Effective date.

148
00:05:45,960 --> 00:05:46,960
Exploration.

149
00:05:46,960 --> 00:05:47,960
Renewal terms.

150
00:05:47,960 --> 00:05:48,960
Notice windows.

151
00:05:48,960 --> 00:05:49,960
Payment terms.

152
00:05:49,960 --> 00:05:50,960
Governing law.

153
00:05:50,960 --> 00:05:54,960
It filled columns that already existed in the library.

154
00:05:54,960 --> 00:05:55,960
Auto-filled touched.

155
00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:56,960
Metadata.

156
00:05:56,960 --> 00:05:57,960
Governance didn't move.

157
00:05:57,960 --> 00:05:58,960
No connector out.

158
00:05:58,960 --> 00:05:59,960
No copy to a vendor system.

159
00:05:59,960 --> 00:06:01,960
The document never left SharePoint.

160
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:03,960
Your existing permissions stayed in charge.

161
00:06:03,960 --> 00:06:06,960
Your sensitivity label stayed on the file.

162
00:06:06,960 --> 00:06:07,960
Retention label stayed mapped.

163
00:06:07,960 --> 00:06:09,960
The audit log recorded who uploaded,

164
00:06:09,960 --> 00:06:11,960
who viewed which columns changed.

165
00:06:11,960 --> 00:06:12,960
Your tenant.

166
00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:13,960
Your rules.

167
00:06:13,960 --> 00:06:14,960
The same room.

168
00:06:14,960 --> 00:06:15,960
Just quieter.

169
00:06:15,960 --> 00:06:16,960
A small example made the point.

170
00:06:16,960 --> 00:06:17,960
Two NDAs dropped within minutes.

171
00:06:17,960 --> 00:06:19,960
Both one year terms.

172
00:06:19,960 --> 00:06:21,960
Different counter parties.

173
00:06:21,960 --> 00:06:25,960
The library gained four values per file without human typing.

174
00:06:25,960 --> 00:06:26,960
Counter party.

175
00:06:26,960 --> 00:06:27,960
Effective date.

176
00:06:27,960 --> 00:06:28,960
Term end.

177
00:06:28,960 --> 00:06:29,960
Renewal logic.

178
00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:32,960
The calculated column turned that into days to expire.

179
00:06:32,960 --> 00:06:34,960
A new surface expiring in 30.

180
00:06:34,960 --> 00:06:36,960
The list populated itself.

181
00:06:36,960 --> 00:06:37,960
Nothing flashy happened.

182
00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:38,960
Then came the clauses.

183
00:06:38,960 --> 00:06:39,960
Termination.

184
00:06:39,960 --> 00:06:40,960
Indemnity.

185
00:06:40,960 --> 00:06:41,960
Assignment.

186
00:06:41,960 --> 00:06:42,960
The processor marked the spans.

187
00:06:42,960 --> 00:06:43,960
Not summaries.

188
00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:45,960
Exact text ranges.

189
00:06:45,960 --> 00:06:46,960
When a field read.

190
00:06:46,960 --> 00:06:47,960
Indemnity.

191
00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:48,960
Mutual.

192
00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:49,960
A link beside it.

193
00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:51,960
Opened the paragraph that proved it.

194
00:06:51,960 --> 00:06:52,960
When it read.

195
00:06:52,960 --> 00:06:53,960
Auto-renewal.

196
00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:54,960
Yes.

197
00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:57,960
The notice window column carried 60 days prior.

198
00:06:57,960 --> 00:06:59,960
Grounded in the sentence that governed it.

199
00:06:59,960 --> 00:07:01,960
Answers pointed back to sources.

200
00:07:01,960 --> 00:07:03,960
Verification became a click.

201
00:07:03,960 --> 00:07:04,960
Per view wasn't bypassed.

202
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:08,960
It continued to enforce what it already enforced.

203
00:07:08,960 --> 00:07:11,960
Record labels remained immutable where policy required it.

204
00:07:11,960 --> 00:07:14,960
Draft security still hid what drafts should hide.

205
00:07:14,960 --> 00:07:17,960
Data loss prevention rules still watched for sensitive data in motion.

206
00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:20,960
This mattered because nothing about control changed.

207
00:07:20,960 --> 00:07:23,960
Only the availability of answers changed.

208
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:26,960
Once columns held truth, questions changed form.

209
00:07:26,960 --> 00:07:30,960
Find the SOW's pending signature beyond seven days.

210
00:07:30,960 --> 00:07:36,960
The library had a signature status metadata value because the e-signature workflow road back status on completion.

211
00:07:36,960 --> 00:07:38,960
The query returned items.

212
00:07:38,960 --> 00:07:41,960
Each item linked to version history and an approval trail.

213
00:07:41,960 --> 00:07:44,960
The answer was operational, not theoretical.

214
00:07:44,960 --> 00:07:46,960
We saw it again with vendor agreements.

215
00:07:46,960 --> 00:07:48,960
Payment terms weren't just read.

216
00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:49,960
They were stored.

217
00:07:49,960 --> 00:07:50,960
Net 30.

218
00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:51,960
Net 45.

219
00:07:51,960 --> 00:07:52,960
Advance.

220
00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:58,960
A Power BI evidence view, bound directly to the library, showed patterns across 12 months.

221
00:07:58,960 --> 00:07:59,960
Not a dashboard for show.

222
00:07:59,960 --> 00:08:04,960
A wall of repeated facts, which vendors deviated from standard terms,

223
00:08:04,960 --> 00:08:08,960
which agreements carried auto renewal with less than 60 day notice,

224
00:08:08,960 --> 00:08:11,960
which jurisdictions dominated governing law.

225
00:08:11,960 --> 00:08:14,960
It was the same data the library held rendered as patterns.

226
00:08:14,960 --> 00:08:16,960
The evidence kept repeating.

227
00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:18,960
The security story didn't move.

228
00:08:18,960 --> 00:08:20,960
The file sat in the same site.

229
00:08:20,960 --> 00:08:22,960
The site lived under the same sensitivity.

230
00:08:22,960 --> 00:08:25,960
The columns belonged to the same content type.

231
00:08:25,960 --> 00:08:27,960
Drafts remained drafts.

232
00:08:27,960 --> 00:08:29,960
Records remained records.

233
00:08:29,960 --> 00:08:31,960
What changed was density.

234
00:08:31,960 --> 00:08:34,960
A single file now carried answers the system could cite.

235
00:08:34,960 --> 00:08:37,960
Multidocument reasoning emerged without theatrics.

236
00:08:37,960 --> 00:08:41,960
Show agreements expiring in the next 60-90 days.

237
00:08:41,960 --> 00:08:43,960
The view filtered by calculated expiry.

238
00:08:43,960 --> 00:08:46,960
Where indemnity is non-mutual.

239
00:08:46,960 --> 00:08:49,960
The extraction model wrote "mutual no".

240
00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:53,960
The knowledge agent returned the list and cited each source paragraph.

241
00:08:53,960 --> 00:08:54,960
It didn't guess.

242
00:08:54,960 --> 00:08:55,960
It didn't approximate.

243
00:08:55,960 --> 00:08:57,960
It cited exact clauses.

244
00:08:57,960 --> 00:09:00,960
Return specific dates listed precise sources.

245
00:09:00,960 --> 00:09:03,960
A quiet moment in the logs confirmed the behavior.

246
00:09:03,960 --> 00:09:04,960
Upload recorded.

247
00:09:04,960 --> 00:09:09,960
Extraction event logged as a column update by the processing service identity.

248
00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:11,960
No external access entries.

249
00:09:11,960 --> 00:09:13,960
No sharing links created.

250
00:09:13,960 --> 00:09:15,960
When a user asked a question.

251
00:09:15,960 --> 00:09:17,960
The query event captured who asked.

252
00:09:17,960 --> 00:09:20,960
What was answered and which files were referenced.

253
00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:22,960
The trail was intact.

254
00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:24,960
Drop-off libraries mattered more than they seemed.

255
00:09:24,960 --> 00:09:27,960
Intake discipline created predictable structure.

256
00:09:27,960 --> 00:09:29,960
Required minimal metadata on arrival.

257
00:09:29,960 --> 00:09:30,960
The rest followed automatically.

258
00:09:30,960 --> 00:09:32,960
People spent less time naming things.

259
00:09:32,960 --> 00:09:34,960
More time asking things.

260
00:09:34,960 --> 00:09:36,960
The effect wasn't speed alone.

261
00:09:36,960 --> 00:09:37,960
It was consistency.

262
00:09:37,960 --> 00:09:42,960
The same columns existed across NDAs, MSAs, SOWs and DPAs.

263
00:09:42,960 --> 00:09:43,960
Different templates.

264
00:09:43,960 --> 00:09:44,960
Same truths.

265
00:09:44,960 --> 00:09:47,960
There was a temptation to call this a new system.

266
00:09:47,960 --> 00:09:48,960
It wasn't.

267
00:09:48,960 --> 00:09:50,960
It was the old system revealing more of itself.

268
00:09:50,960 --> 00:09:51,960
SharePoint held the files.

269
00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:54,960
AI document processing wrote the facts to columns.

270
00:09:54,960 --> 00:09:57,960
Knowledge agent answered questions with citations.

271
00:09:57,960 --> 00:10:00,960
Power BI showed patterns of those same facts over time.

272
00:10:00,960 --> 00:10:02,960
Power automate moved a few approvals.

273
00:10:02,960 --> 00:10:04,960
Wrote a few statuses back.

274
00:10:04,960 --> 00:10:05,960
Per view kept its hand on everything.

275
00:10:05,960 --> 00:10:06,960
The contracts didn't change.

276
00:10:06,960 --> 00:10:08,960
The intake didn't change.

277
00:10:08,960 --> 00:10:09,960
The governance didn't change.

278
00:10:09,960 --> 00:10:11,960
The questions did.

279
00:10:11,960 --> 00:10:13,960
And because the questions changed.

280
00:10:13,960 --> 00:10:15,960
Answers appeared where storage used to end.

281
00:10:15,960 --> 00:10:17,960
Asking the system.

282
00:10:17,960 --> 00:10:19,960
Natural language, citations and contract grounding.

283
00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:21,960
The question moved first.

284
00:10:21,960 --> 00:10:22,960
Not the file.

285
00:10:22,960 --> 00:10:25,960
Show agreements expiring in 60-90 days.

286
00:10:25,960 --> 00:10:26,960
A plain sentence.

287
00:10:26,960 --> 00:10:27,960
No operators.

288
00:10:27,960 --> 00:10:29,960
No advanced syntax.

289
00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:32,960
The SharePoint knowledge agent treated it like a request for facts.

290
00:10:32,960 --> 00:10:34,960
Not a search for files.

291
00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:36,960
It inspected the library's columns.

292
00:10:36,960 --> 00:10:38,960
It applied the filter the way a person would.

293
00:10:38,960 --> 00:10:39,960
It returned a list.

294
00:10:39,960 --> 00:10:41,960
Each row carried a citation icon.

295
00:10:41,960 --> 00:10:43,960
Click once and the agent opened the contract.

296
00:10:43,960 --> 00:10:44,960
Not to the cover page.

297
00:10:44,960 --> 00:10:47,960
To the sentence that governed expiry.

298
00:10:47,960 --> 00:10:48,960
Exact span.

299
00:10:48,960 --> 00:10:49,960
Highlighted.

300
00:10:49,960 --> 00:10:50,960
The answer didn't stand alone.

301
00:10:50,960 --> 00:10:51,960
It stood on a source.

302
00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:54,960
Closed level matters because contracts are written to be specific.

303
00:10:54,960 --> 00:10:56,960
The question like, is indemnity mutual?

304
00:10:56,960 --> 00:10:58,960
Is not a category question.

305
00:10:58,960 --> 00:10:59,960
It's a line of text question.

306
00:10:59,960 --> 00:11:01,960
The agent's response came back with two parts.

307
00:11:01,960 --> 00:11:03,960
A short direct answer.

308
00:11:03,960 --> 00:11:07,960
And a set of citations pointing to the indemnity paragraph in each contract.

309
00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:08,960
It didn't paraphrase.

310
00:11:08,960 --> 00:11:09,960
It didn't interpret.

311
00:11:09,960 --> 00:11:12,960
It presented the literal text it relied on.

312
00:11:12,960 --> 00:11:13,960
We pushed it.

313
00:11:13,960 --> 00:11:16,960
List all agreements where notice of non-release.

314
00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:20,960
Notice of non-renewal must be given more than 60 days prior.

315
00:11:20,960 --> 00:11:22,960
The agent returned the candidates.

316
00:11:22,960 --> 00:11:25,960
It cited the sentences that forced that window.

317
00:11:25,960 --> 00:11:28,960
It also flagged a few with ambiguous phrasing.

318
00:11:28,960 --> 00:11:31,960
The thing most people miss is the value of ambiguity detection.

319
00:11:31,960 --> 00:11:32,960
The agent didn't decide.

320
00:11:32,960 --> 00:11:36,960
It exposed uncertainty with the same precision it exposed certainty.

321
00:11:36,960 --> 00:11:39,960
Humans stayed in the loop by choice, not by necessity.

322
00:11:39,960 --> 00:11:43,960
Multidocument reasoning appeared as soon as the question spanned types.

323
00:11:43,960 --> 00:11:48,960
Across NDAs and MSAs show those with auto renewal and less than 60 day notice.

324
00:11:48,960 --> 00:11:51,960
This crossed templates, counter parties and years.

325
00:11:51,960 --> 00:11:53,960
The agent didn't conflate structure.

326
00:11:53,960 --> 00:11:55,960
It leaned on extracted values.

327
00:11:55,960 --> 00:11:57,960
Auto renewal ill yes.

328
00:11:57,960 --> 00:11:59,960
Notice window 830 or 45 or 60.

329
00:11:59,960 --> 00:12:01,960
It filtered on those facts.

330
00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:05,960
Then it cited, predocument, the exact clause that produced those facts.

331
00:12:05,960 --> 00:12:09,960
Verification was one click away 50 times in a row without fatigue.

332
00:12:09,960 --> 00:12:11,960
Why citations matter is simple.

333
00:12:11,960 --> 00:12:13,960
Trust doesn't scale on summaries.

334
00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:15,960
It scales on reproducibility.

335
00:12:15,960 --> 00:12:19,960
When the answer carries its own evidence, audit becomes a review of links.

336
00:12:19,960 --> 00:12:22,960
Not a really degation of process.

337
00:12:22,960 --> 00:12:25,960
According to the logs, each answer stored the question.

338
00:12:25,960 --> 00:12:30,960
The identity of the asker, the list of files referenced and the spans cited.

339
00:12:30,960 --> 00:12:32,960
That's a trail an auditor can follow.

340
00:12:32,960 --> 00:12:34,960
That's also a trail escape to contest.

341
00:12:34,960 --> 00:12:36,960
A micro story made it clear.

342
00:12:36,960 --> 00:12:43,960
Legal asked show all MSAs where limitation of liability excludes indirect damages.

343
00:12:43,960 --> 00:12:45,960
The agent returned the small set.

344
00:12:45,960 --> 00:12:51,960
Each item expanded to the paragraph that excluded consequential or incidental damages.

345
00:12:51,960 --> 00:12:54,960
One contract used a carve out for data loss.

346
00:12:54,960 --> 00:12:57,960
The agent cited that carve out separately.

347
00:12:57,960 --> 00:12:59,960
The human decision remained human.

348
00:12:59,960 --> 00:13:04,960
But discovery time dropped from hours to minutes because the question arrived with the evidence attached.

349
00:13:04,960 --> 00:13:06,960
Now here's where most people mess up.

350
00:13:06,960 --> 00:13:08,960
They assumed the content got smarter.

351
00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:10,960
It didn't. The content got questionable.

352
00:13:10,960 --> 00:13:12,960
The library already held the columns.

353
00:13:12,960 --> 00:13:14,960
The extraction model already wrote values.

354
00:13:14,960 --> 00:13:17,960
The agent already knew how to answer in natural language.

355
00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:19,960
The only change was behavior.

356
00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:21,960
Stop searching for file names.

357
00:13:21,960 --> 00:13:23,960
Start asking for facts with citations.

358
00:13:23,960 --> 00:13:28,960
So we also saw limit cases where governing law is New York and indemnity is unilateral.

359
00:13:28,960 --> 00:13:30,960
The agent found them.

360
00:13:30,960 --> 00:13:34,960
Flagged one where indemnity looked mutual until a later sentence narrowed the scope.

361
00:13:34,960 --> 00:13:37,960
It cited both places. It didn't resolve the tension.

362
00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:40,960
It surfaced it. That's decision support, not automation.

363
00:13:40,960 --> 00:13:43,960
There was a moment when finance asked a pattern question.

364
00:13:43,960 --> 00:13:47,960
Show vendors with payment terms outside our standard net 30.

365
00:13:47,960 --> 00:13:51,960
The agent produced the list grouped by net 45 net 60 advance.

366
00:13:51,960 --> 00:13:55,960
It linked each variance to the exact term text.

367
00:13:55,960 --> 00:13:59,960
Then the Power BI evidence view showed the same list over the last four quarters.

368
00:13:59,960 --> 00:14:01,960
No new data, just repetition over time.

369
00:14:01,960 --> 00:14:03,960
The evidence kept repeating.

370
00:14:03,960 --> 00:14:05,960
Grounding never broke governance.

371
00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:08,960
Permissions trimmed results to the Ascars access.

372
00:14:08,960 --> 00:14:11,960
A viewer saw only what they were already allowed to see.

373
00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:14,960
Sensitivity labels persisted.

374
00:14:14,960 --> 00:14:17,960
Retention labels remained visible in the item detail.

375
00:14:17,960 --> 00:14:19,960
The answer respected the walls.

376
00:14:19,960 --> 00:14:21,960
It only walked the aisles faster.

377
00:14:21,960 --> 00:14:23,960
We asked a human sounding question.

378
00:14:23,960 --> 00:14:27,960
Which SOWs have been awaiting signature more than seven days?

379
00:14:27,960 --> 00:14:31,960
The agent cross referenced signature status and signature date columns.

380
00:14:31,960 --> 00:14:35,960
It returned the set. Each item included a link to version history and the approval event.

381
00:14:35,960 --> 00:14:38,960
No one guessed. No one forwarded a PDF.

382
00:14:38,960 --> 00:14:41,960
The system answered with receipts. The subtle shift was cognitive.

383
00:14:41,960 --> 00:14:43,960
People stopped asking, "Where is the document?"

384
00:14:43,960 --> 00:14:47,960
And started asking, "What does the document apply just to do?"

385
00:14:47,960 --> 00:14:49,960
The first is location. The second is liability.

386
00:14:49,960 --> 00:14:52,960
That's a better conversation for every function.

387
00:14:52,960 --> 00:14:54,960
Alternate explanations were tested.

388
00:14:54,960 --> 00:14:57,960
Could metadata alone have done this? Possibly.

389
00:14:57,960 --> 00:15:00,960
But metadata doesn't explain clause-level citations.

390
00:15:00,960 --> 00:15:03,960
Could an Excel tracker have done it? Maybe for a month.

391
00:15:03,960 --> 00:15:06,960
But trackers don't enforce citations and they drift.

392
00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:09,960
The tenants outcome depended on one behavior.

393
00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:13,960
Ask the repository questions as if it knew the text.

394
00:15:13,960 --> 00:15:15,960
In every case the contracts didn't move.

395
00:15:15,960 --> 00:15:19,960
The governance didn't change. The answers arrived with their own grounding.

396
00:15:19,960 --> 00:15:21,960
It didn't guess. It didn't approximate.

397
00:15:21,960 --> 00:15:26,960
It cited exact clauses, return specific dates, listed precise sources.

398
00:15:26,960 --> 00:15:28,960
Use case one.

399
00:15:28,960 --> 00:15:32,960
NDAs. Volume. Velocity. And quiet. Exploration.

400
00:15:32,960 --> 00:15:36,960
Every tenant has them. Hundreds. Sometimes thousands.

401
00:15:36,960 --> 00:15:40,960
Short, simple, necessary. NDAs move fast. Then go quiet.

402
00:15:40,960 --> 00:15:43,960
That quiet is where risk hides. In this case, intake didn't change.

403
00:15:43,960 --> 00:15:45,960
A drop-off library received the flow.

404
00:15:45,960 --> 00:15:48,960
Minimal required metadata on arrival.

405
00:15:48,960 --> 00:15:51,960
Counterparty name. Business owner.

406
00:15:51,960 --> 00:15:54,960
Draft state contained. The extraction model did the rest.

407
00:15:54,960 --> 00:15:56,960
It read dates. It read terms.

408
00:15:56,960 --> 00:16:01,960
It wrote effective date, expiry date, renewal logic notice window.

409
00:16:01,960 --> 00:16:04,960
Four fields. No ceremony.

410
00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:08,960
Cycle time shifted. The minute those values existed.

411
00:16:08,960 --> 00:16:10,960
The question wasn't who owns this file.

412
00:16:10,960 --> 00:16:13,960
It was which NDAs expire in the next 30 days.

413
00:16:13,960 --> 00:16:15,960
The knowledge agent returned a list.

414
00:16:15,960 --> 00:16:22,960
Names. Dates. Citations. One click opened the exact clause that defined the end date.

415
00:16:22,960 --> 00:16:26,960
Another click showed the notice requirement. Humans didn't reread. They verified.

416
00:16:26,960 --> 00:16:29,960
Volume made the difference obvious. 50 NDAs uploaded in a week.

417
00:16:29,960 --> 00:16:32,960
The view expiring in 30 populated itself.

418
00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:34,960
No spreadsheet. No monthly export.

419
00:16:34,960 --> 00:16:38,960
A calculated column measured days to expiry. A saved view filtered.

420
00:16:38,960 --> 00:16:41,960
A person asked. An answer appeared.

421
00:16:41,960 --> 00:16:44,960
With sources. The evidence kept repeating.

422
00:16:44,960 --> 00:16:47,960
Quiet expiration is a pattern not a story.

423
00:16:47,960 --> 00:16:51,960
NDAs rarely carry penalties but they do carry obligations.

424
00:16:51,960 --> 00:16:54,960
Post termination confidentiality doesn't end with the term.

425
00:16:54,960 --> 00:16:58,960
A quick question. Which expired NDAs include post term confidentiality?

426
00:16:58,960 --> 00:17:01,960
Produced a small set. The agent cited each survival clause.

427
00:17:01,960 --> 00:17:04,960
Legal saw the same sentences the system relied on.

428
00:17:04,960 --> 00:17:07,960
Risk review became minutes not afternoons.

429
00:17:07,960 --> 00:17:12,960
Velocity matters. Deals move. New counterparties arrive. The intake discipline held.

430
00:17:12,960 --> 00:17:15,960
A new NDA dropped. Columns filled.

431
00:17:15,960 --> 00:17:20,960
If the counterparties template used one year from effective date, the model wrote the exact date.

432
00:17:20,960 --> 00:17:24,960
If it used until the later of. The agent flagged ambiguity.

433
00:17:24,960 --> 00:17:27,960
It didn't pretend to know. It surfaced the edge.

434
00:17:27,960 --> 00:17:29,960
Linked to the text and stopped.

435
00:17:29,960 --> 00:17:32,960
Humans stayed in the loop where language was tricky.

436
00:17:32,960 --> 00:17:34,960
Errors stopped looking like mistakes.

437
00:17:34,960 --> 00:17:39,960
They looked like absences that didn't happen. No missed renewals because the list for.

438
00:17:39,960 --> 00:17:47,960
Expiring in 30 never needed curation. No wrong version signed because draft security and version history were visible inside the same item pane.

439
00:17:47,960 --> 00:17:53,960
No misretermination because answers always carried their citations back to the line that controlled it.

440
00:17:53,960 --> 00:17:56,960
A simple metric told the story without a graph.

441
00:17:56,960 --> 00:18:00,960
The time to answer do we have an NDA with them and is it current?

442
00:18:00,960 --> 00:18:07,960
It fell from days to minutes. The ask landed in the same tenant against the same library returning the same evidence every time.

443
00:18:07,960 --> 00:18:13,960
Latency disappeared because nobody went hunting. They asked. The system answered. With receipts.

444
00:18:13,960 --> 00:18:18,960
Adoptions showed up as silence. Shared trackers went stale and stayed that way.

445
00:18:18,960 --> 00:18:21,960
Email chains asking anyone have the latest NDA with X?

446
00:18:21,960 --> 00:18:30,960
Slowed then stopped. The internal habit changed. People still worked with files but they stopped treating files as the only path to facts.

447
00:18:30,960 --> 00:18:37,960
A short list in a view became the first stop. Not because someone trained them but because it was faster.

448
00:18:37,960 --> 00:18:43,960
Governance never blinked. Permissions trimmed outputs. Sensitivity labels persisted.

449
00:18:43,960 --> 00:18:49,960
Retention labels stayed visible and where an NDA was a record it remained immutable.

450
00:18:49,960 --> 00:18:53,960
Per Views rules still enforced the same policies the intake was compliant before.

451
00:18:53,960 --> 00:18:58,960
It remained compliant after. The only change was that answers lived in the same place compliance did.

452
00:18:58,960 --> 00:19:05,960
We watched the quarter turn. The expiring in 30 view emptied and filled again. Driven by dates, not by effort.

453
00:19:05,960 --> 00:19:11,960
A Power BI evidence view sat on the wall. Counts by week, experienced by business unit.

454
00:19:11,960 --> 00:19:17,960
Average notice windows by counterparty. Patterns, not dashboards for show. The wall didn't predict.

455
00:19:17,960 --> 00:19:25,960
It confirmed the evidence kept repeating. Alternate explanations were considered. Could a disciplined spreadsheet have done this? For a few weeks maybe.

456
00:19:25,960 --> 00:19:31,960
But spreadsheets don't enforce citations and they don't respect permissions. Could email reminders solve it?

457
00:19:31,960 --> 00:19:38,960
Only if the calendar owner never leaves and the register never drifts. Neither explanation fits clause level grounding across volume.

458
00:19:38,960 --> 00:19:44,960
One micro event closed the loop. A sales lead asked, is their NDA still active for next week's workshop?

459
00:19:44,960 --> 00:19:53,960
The agent returned, yes, cited the expiry clause and highlighted the survival language covering confidential information after termination.

460
00:19:53,960 --> 00:19:59,960
The reply carried links, not attachments. No one printed, no one searched, no one guessed.

461
00:19:59,960 --> 00:20:05,960
The NDAs didn't become important. They already were. They became answerable inside the same room under the same lights.

462
00:20:05,960 --> 00:20:10,960
Watched by the same cameras. Nothing was replaced, nothing was migrated, only the question changed.

463
00:20:10,960 --> 00:20:17,960
Use case two vendor agreements, MSAs, financial terms and renewal risk, money hides in the middle of these.

464
00:20:17,960 --> 00:20:24,960
Not the signature, the middle, payment terms, notice windows, auto renewals that don't announce themselves.

465
00:20:24,960 --> 00:20:30,960
In this case, nothing exotic happened at intake. The MSA landed in the same site. The library columns were already there.

466
00:20:30,960 --> 00:20:43,960
AI document processing read what mattered for finance and legal, payment terms, billing cadence, discounts, auto renewal, notice period, limitation of liability, governing law.

467
00:20:43,960 --> 00:20:52,960
It wrote them. Columns filled the file state put. The first question was simple and expensive. Show MSAs with auto renewal and less than 60 day notice.

468
00:20:52,960 --> 00:20:58,960
The knowledge agent returned the candidates, each line carried a citation. Click and you were in the clause that controlled renewal.

469
00:20:58,960 --> 00:21:07,960
Some said she'll automatically renew for successive one year terms, unless either party provides written notice at least 30 days prior.

470
00:21:07,960 --> 00:21:14,960
Some hit a 45 day window halfway through a paragraph about termination. The answer didn't summarize, it pointed, then payment terms.

471
00:21:14,960 --> 00:21:23,960
List vendors with terms outside net 30. The column held net 45 net 60 advanced, the agent grouped by variance. Each variance linked to the precise text.

472
00:21:23,960 --> 00:21:29,960
Finance didn't argue the list. They saw the sentences. The conversation moved from, "Do we have this? Do we accept this?"

473
00:21:29,960 --> 00:21:39,960
Error stopped by not starting. No missed auto renewals because the expiring in 6090 view included the auto renewed contracts with short notice.

474
00:21:39,960 --> 00:21:44,960
No accidental rollovers because the notice window was a column, not a memory.

475
00:21:44,960 --> 00:21:50,960
The approval trail lived beside the file. Nobody forwarded the final version from a mailbox with a slightly older date.

476
00:21:50,960 --> 00:21:56,960
A microstory told the consequence, a vendor MSA carried a 30 day notice on renewal and net 60 payments.

477
00:21:56,960 --> 00:22:04,960
The old habit was to remember the headline and miss the fine print. The agent returned both. It cited the 30 day sentence and the payment paragraph.

478
00:22:04,960 --> 00:22:11,960
The Power BI evidence view showed 10 more like it over the year. Not a spike, a pattern, the evidence kept repeating.

479
00:22:11,960 --> 00:22:14,960
We tested multi-document reasoning where stakes intersect.

480
00:22:14,960 --> 00:22:24,960
Across MSAs and SOWs showed those with auto renewal, ill yes, notice, 60 and payment terms net 30.

481
00:22:24,960 --> 00:22:30,960
The agent filtered on facts already extracted. It returned the set. Each row opened the governing sentences.

482
00:22:30,960 --> 00:22:37,960
One SOW referenced the MSA for payment terms. The agent cited the cross reference and the source paragraph in the MSA.

483
00:22:37,960 --> 00:22:44,960
The thread held without leaving the tenant. Limitation of liability sat where finance and legal meet.

484
00:22:44,960 --> 00:22:51,960
List MSAs where liability cap excludes indirect damages but includes a carve out for data loss.

485
00:22:51,960 --> 00:22:56,960
The agent produced a very small set. It cited the exclusion first, then the carve out.

486
00:22:56,960 --> 00:23:01,960
No one debated what it said. They debated whether to accept it. Decision support, not automation.

487
00:23:01,960 --> 00:23:11,960
Power BI stayed boring on purpose, a wall of repeated facts, count of MSAs by payment term, count with short notice windows, distribution of governing law.

488
00:23:11,960 --> 00:23:17,960
A simple visual flagged vendors deviating from standard terms over four quarters. Not a dashboard for show.

489
00:23:17,960 --> 00:23:25,960
Evidence over time, the evidence kept repeating. Alternate explanations were raised. Could a disciplined register have caught these? Maybe for a moment.

490
00:23:25,960 --> 00:23:30,960
But registers don't cite clauses and they drift with every copy. Could email rules remind owners?

491
00:23:30,960 --> 00:23:37,960
Only if every owner remains and every reminder survives migration. Neither explains a list that arrives with links to the line that governs money.

492
00:23:37,960 --> 00:23:46,960
Governance never moved. The site's sensitivity label applied. Retention labels stayed visible. Records remained immutable where required.

493
00:23:46,960 --> 00:23:56,960
Permissions trimmed outputs. A project manager saw only the MSAs they were allowed to see. The agent respected the walls. It only walked the aisles faster. Legal asked a skeptical question.

494
00:23:56,960 --> 00:24:02,960
What happens when language is ambiguous? Unless otherwise agreed in the applicable SW appears three times.

495
00:24:02,960 --> 00:24:12,960
The agent didn't resolve it. It surfaced the references. It cited each place SO precedence was invoked. Humans examined the SOW's. The system accelerated the path to the right pages.

496
00:24:12,960 --> 00:24:22,960
Process containment mattered. E-signature completed inside Microsoft 365. Power Automate wrote back signature status. It was complete. Execution date. Signer.

497
00:24:22,960 --> 00:24:30,960
The items version history showed the approval event. Nothing left the tenant. No one downloaded a PDF to desktop to circulate for visibility.

498
00:24:30,960 --> 00:24:39,960
The answer lived with its receipts. Cycle time dropped where money meets calendars. Which MSAs require notice in the next 45 days to avoid renewal.

499
00:24:39,960 --> 00:24:48,960
The agent returned the list. Each item included the notice sentence. A mail merge didn't happen. A question did. A decision did. Minutes. Not days.

500
00:24:48,960 --> 00:25:00,960
The quiet win showed up in silence. Fewer urgent pings before quarter close. Fewer late exceptions to payment policy. Fewer escalations because a renewal rolled over unchallenged.

501
00:25:00,960 --> 00:25:08,960
When people stopped asking something changed. Here the change was that the system answered with the text that would have been re-read.

502
00:25:08,960 --> 00:25:24,960
The MSAs didn't become transparent. They were always explicit. The tenant stopped treating that explicitness as a reading assignment. It became a column. It became a question. It became an answer with a citation. Nothing was replaced. Nothing was migrated only the question changed.

503
00:25:24,960 --> 00:25:36,960
Use case three. Statements of work. Process delays without leaving M365. Operational friction doesn't hide in clauses. It hides in handoffs. SOW's prove it.

504
00:25:36,960 --> 00:25:52,960
In this tenant, nothing fancy happened at intake. SOW drafts landed in the same side. The content type already carried fields for project counterparty value start end. And a few that matter when people have to act. Signature status. A waiting role. Days in state.

505
00:25:52,960 --> 00:26:12,960
The eye document processing read the scope and dates wrote the basics and stepped aside. Governance stayed put. Drafts remained drafts. Where work stalled wasn't content. It was movement. Email approvals. Detached PDFs. A last minute red line lost in a reply all. The fix wasn't a new tool. It was containment.

506
00:26:12,960 --> 00:26:30,960
Signature ran inside Microsoft 365. Word generated the signature packet. Approvers received it through the same identity they used for everything else. Power automate recorded completion back to the item. Signature status. X awaiting client. Then awaiting internal. Then complete.

507
00:26:30,960 --> 00:26:41,960
Version history tied edits to events. No file detours. No silent forks. The question shifted from who has the dock. To which SOW's have been awaiting signature more than seven days.

508
00:26:41,960 --> 00:26:59,960
The knowledge agent answered by reading columns. Not guesses. It returned the list filtered by days in state seven and signature status. X awaiting client or awaiting internal. Each item expanded to show the last approval action. The timestamp and the version where it paused.

509
00:26:59,960 --> 00:27:22,960
A link opened the current draft at the signature block. Operational evidence not narrative. Latency exposed itself in numbers. One SOW set awaiting internal for nine days. The agent showed who the approver was. When they were notified. And the last comment. It didn't arbitrate. It surfaced the lane where the delay lived. Another stalled awaiting client across a holiday.

510
00:27:22,960 --> 00:27:50,960
The status carried the external send date. No unspeculated. No one hunted an inbox. A view turned it into a row with receipts. We saw the same pattern when scope changed. A project manager revised the milestone. Word tracked the delta. The approval flow. Re-ran. Automatically because scope changed. It was yes. The library wrote back awaiting internal again. The agent answered. Which SOW's re entered approval due to scope change in the last 14 days.

511
00:27:50,960 --> 00:28:12,960
The list appeared. Each item linked to the red line that triggered it. The conversation moved from blame to sequence. Process containment mattered more than speed. Nothing left the tenant. No one downloaded final V3 signed PDF to a desktop. The signed copy saved to the same library with signature status. X complete. Execution date and signer.

512
00:28:12,960 --> 00:28:38,960
Version history showed the approval event. Per view labels remained. Record state applied on execution where policy required it. Audit logs captured the run. Who sent? Who signed? Which file? When? Your existing governance was still there the whole time. A micro story made it tangible. A regional SOW bounced between two internal approvers for five days over a minor budget note.

513
00:28:38,960 --> 00:28:56,960
The agent showed days in state equal five under awaiting internal with two comments. The project lead pinged the owner with a link to the item not the file. The approver opened the draft in word online. Accepted the trivial change and the flow advanced.

514
00:28:56,960 --> 00:29:06,960
Minutes not more emails. The document never left the room. We tested multi-sau queries. Show all SOW's awaiting client signature more than seven days grouped by counterparty.

515
00:29:06,960 --> 00:29:35,960
The agent returned the set. It cited the external send date stored in the item. A power BI evidence view on the wall showed the same delays by quarter by team by counterparty. Not to shame to repeat. The evidence kept repeating. Alternate explanation surfaced and fell away. Could a shared mailbox have managed this? Possibly for a little while. But shared mailboxes don't write days in state and they don't tie status to version events. Could a separate e-signature portal have done it? Maybe.

516
00:29:35,960 --> 00:29:45,960
But it would have pulled the file out of the tenant and split the trail. Neither explains answers that carried logs, versions and signatures in one place.

517
00:29:45,960 --> 00:30:00,960
Errors avoided were quiet. No wrong version signed because version history was the source of truth visible alongside status. No lost attachments because nothing left the library. No final sitting behind a person's mailbox vacation rule.

518
00:30:00,960 --> 00:30:19,960
Cycle time improved by subtraction fewer detours fewer forwards fewer checking in emails. The subtle shift was diagnostic. People stopped arguing over documents and started acting on states. The content didn't block the process did. Once the system exposed state with receipts delays moved from guesswork to q work.

519
00:30:19,960 --> 00:30:34,960
Statements of work didn't change the way we asked about them did use case for DPA's compliance agreements exposure without drama regulatory obligations don't yell they sit in the middle of the document and wait. Data processing agreements prove it intake didn't change.

520
00:30:34,960 --> 00:30:48,960
A DPA arrived through the same drop off library minimal required metadata counterparty business owner the extraction model read what compliance and security always chase later. Data categories processing purposes sub processor disclosures,

521
00:30:48,960 --> 00:31:03,960
transfer mechanisms incident notification windows governing jurisdiction standard contractual clauses references columns filled the file state put governance stayed on the first question wasn't legal theory it was exposure.

522
00:31:03,960 --> 00:31:27,960
Show DPA's missing standard indemnity the knowledge agent returned the subset each line carried a citation to the liability and indemnity section where indemnity deviated or was absent the agent highlighted the paragraph that proved it legal didn't re read to discover they re read to decide sub processes were next list DPA's that reference third party sub processes without an up to date disclosure schedule.

523
00:31:27,960 --> 00:31:48,960
The model had written a simple Boolean sub processors yes no and a schedule present column the agent filtered and cited it linked the schedule reference and where the schedule was missing it pointed to the passage requiring notice on changes compliance didn't chase email trails they opened the clauses transfers matter because regulators care.

524
00:31:48,960 --> 00:32:17,960
Show DPA's relying on standard contractual clauses for transfers to third countries the column held transfer mechanism is a cell SCC the agent grouped by version year referenced in the text it cited the annex one agreement used an older SCC reference the agent surfaced both the outdated citation and the governing sentence no alarms just receipts incident windows surfaced quietly list DPA's where security incident notification

525
00:32:17,960 --> 00:32:46,960
exceed 72 hours the column carried breach notice window hours anything above 72 was flagged the agent pointed to the sentence promising five business days or without undue delay legal saw the exact phrasing that would be evaluated after a breach exposure wasn't hypothetical it was a number with a source jurisdiction and supervisory authority aligned with where complaints land across DPA's governed by Ireland show those with unilateral audit rights.

526
00:32:46,960 --> 00:33:15,960
The extracted values handled both governing law eos Ireland audit rights a unilateral mutual third party certification the agent returned the list with citations to the audit clause no one argued whether an ISO certificate was enough they read the sentence that said it record management never blinked where DPA's were labeled as records they remained immutable where sensitivity labels applied they persisted retention labels were visible in the item pane

527
00:33:15,960 --> 00:33:41,960
including event based retention when policy used contract expiry to start the clock purview didn't take a day off just because answers arrived faster your existing governance was still there the whole time a microstory made risk concrete security asked which DPA's require us to notify the counterparty without undue delay and also cap our liability to fees paid in the last 12 months.

528
00:33:41,960 --> 00:34:07,960
The agent filtered on notice window equals undue delay and liability cap X 12 months fees it returned a very small set and cited both clauses for each result the conversation move from is that true to do we accept that minutes not meetings ambiguity showed up where it should where are data deletion obligations tied to termination or expiry whichever is later within a reasonable period.

529
00:34:07,960 --> 00:34:33,960
The agent surfaced the phrase cited it and flagged reasonable period unspecified it didn't judge it annotated uncertainty so humans could decision support not automation we looked at sub-processors again this time as patterns a power bi evidence view bound to the same library showed counts of DPA's with explicit sub-processor lists versus references to public web pages.

530
00:34:33,960 --> 00:35:02,960
It tracked over two quarters how often advance notice versus post facto notification appeared not a dashboard for show a wall of repeated facts the evidence kept repeating alternate explanations appeared and fell away could a manual register track these obligations possibly for a while but registers don't cite the sentences that regulators will read and they drift with every copy could external CLM do it better it might but then you move governance permissions and audit into a deal.

531
00:35:02,960 --> 00:35:31,960
Here the answer lived where the control already lived process containment protected the trail external signature didn't pull the file out the executed DPA saved back into the same library with signature status equal complete execution date and signer inversion history showed the approval and execution events audit logs captured the flow who asked what was answered which files were referenced if a regulator ever asked how do you know

532
00:35:31,960 --> 00:36:00,960
the system had an answer with receipts acquired contrast clarified the change at the time teams thought this was search what we know now is that it wasn't it was questioning search returns files questioning returns obligations with citations the contract didn't change only the question did cycle time dropped where it matters most the time between do we comply and show me legal stop assembling email PDFs security stopped waiting for someone to confirm a notice

533
00:36:00,960 --> 00:36:24,960
window compliance stopped guessing which SEC and X applied the single query return the set each item linked to the line that would be argued in a hearing minutes replaced afternoons the soft signal appeared again fewer escalation emails at quarter and fewer urgent messages before audits fewer spreadsheet registers pretending to be systems when people stop asking something changed

534
00:36:24,960 --> 00:36:50,960
here the change was that DPA's answered back under the same lights on the same shelves governed by the same rules nothing was replaced nothing was migrated exposure didn't produce drama it produced citations mechanics not magic how the pieces quietly work together the stack was ordinary sharepoint held the libraries knowledge agent answered questions with citations document processing extracted facts power

535
00:36:50,960 --> 00:37:19,960
power b i showed patterns power automate moved a few handoffs purview governed all of it no hero product no side card database just standard parts doing what they already do in sequence start at the shelf sharepoint libraries content types columns names you already know effective date expiration date auto renewal notice window payment terms governing law signature status nothing exotic columns exist to carry truth not decoration views exist to narrow focus not entertain permission

536
00:37:19,960 --> 00:37:47,960
stream what's visible sensitivity and retention labels travel with the file that's the room then the reading document processing for Microsoft 365 or AI builder where that's preferred it picks up the file in place reads the text writes the fields you asked it to write parties dates renewal logic clauses it does that as a column update not a content rewrite the output is structured the file stays intact the service identity

537
00:37:47,960 --> 00:38:04,960
appears in the audit log with the change event that's the extraction now the questions share point knowledge agent sits near the content a plane sentence lands show MSAs with auto renewal and notice less than 60 days the agent

538
00:38:04,960 --> 00:38:25,960
resolved that to filters on the columns the processor already wrote it returns rows each row carries a citation icon back to the exact span in the file it doesn't paraphrase it doesn't produce a memo it produces an answer with a pointer that's grounding when the answer spans documents nothing

539
00:38:25,960 --> 00:38:43,960
doubles the agent works across the same library or a defined set of libraries respecting permissions across and yes and MSAs list in demnity non mutual the filter runs on extracted values the citations come from each files clause span there's no

540
00:38:43,960 --> 00:38:58,960
shift to a side index there's no copy in a vendor cloud that's containment power be I sits on the same truth it binds to the library as a source columns that already exist not a parallel register it doesn't invent

541
00:38:58,960 --> 00:39:12,960
KPIs it shows patterns counts by notice window payment term distributions expires by quarter auto renewal prevalence no drill circus a wall that repeats what the library already knows over time

542
00:39:12,960 --> 00:39:30,960
that's the evidence wall power automate does the minimum required to close loops e-signature inside Microsoft 365 writes status back awaiting client awaiting internal complete plus execution date signer approval actions log to the item as comments or history entries

543
00:39:30,960 --> 00:39:50,960
when scope changes a flag flips the flow reruns the state returns to awaiting internal the document never leaves that's the handoff purview never steps aside sensitivity labels enforce what they always enforced record labels lock what policy declares immutable retention triggers fire on events you already

544
00:39:50,960 --> 00:40:06,960
defined execution date expiry date dlp watches in motion same as before audit logs capture who asked who viewed which columns changed which files were cited the guard rails didn't move to accommodate answers answers appeared within guard

545
00:40:06,960 --> 00:40:22,960
the site owner cares about structure and hygiene content types columns required fields views that reflect work the information protection admin cares about labels retention dlp and audit

546
00:40:22,960 --> 00:40:33,960
neither becomes a developer neither runs migrations they agree on names for columns and let the services fill them scaling isn't a feature it's an absence of special cases

547
00:40:33,960 --> 00:40:49,960
msa's s ow's dp a's different templates same backbone drop off libraries stabilize intake minimal required fields at arrival reduce early friction process is right the rest views normalize retrieval agent answers normalize questioning

548
00:40:49,960 --> 00:41:18,960
bi normalizes repetition the same pattern everywhere what about accuracy close spans are literal if the text is unusual the model flags ambiguity reasonable period becomes an explicit note unless otherwise agreed in the applicable s ow becomes a cross reference you can click the system doesn't infer intent it exposes structure humans adjudicate edge cases with the text already open what about security drift there isn't any no connectors copy files out no

549
00:41:18,960 --> 00:41:39,960
exports to csv to feed dashboards no shadow CLM standing beside governance sharepoint remains the store labels remain the policy the processing identity is a service you already authorized inside your tenant the knowledge agent uses your permissions not its own the answers you see are the answers you're allowed to see fail your

550
00:41:39,960 --> 00:42:06,960
modes are ordinary to a new column name that diverges from patterns those questions until alignment returns a missing drop of discipline adds noise to intake until required fields are restored a flow that stopped after a change shows in run history and version history the item tells on itself fixes are administrative not architectural the reason this feels like magic is rhythm intake extract ask site

551
00:42:06,960 --> 00:42:27,960
decide repeat each step is simple together they create a surface where questions land an evidence comes back no ceremony no theater just mechanics doing what mechanics do quietly under governance you already trust second look what we thought was search versus what was actually answering at the time the model

552
00:42:27,960 --> 00:42:45,960
looked new switch got flipped a capability appeared that's how it felt what we know now is quieter search expectations were doing most of the talking people typed file names because that's what file systems taught them they stacked filters because that's what keyword engines rewarded the habit was location not meaning the repository

553
00:42:45,960 --> 00:43:05,960
didn't change the interface to truth did when columns carried facts the question stopped being find and became ask the difference is not cosmetic find tolerates drift ask requires precision find returns candidates ask returns a claim with its source that's why latency collapsed

554
00:43:05,960 --> 00:43:21,960
without the atrix we thought the boost came from AI the lift came from structure clauses pants made evidence portable columns made patterns computable the agent did something simple and hard at the same time it treated the library like a table of facts then refused to answer without a citation

555
00:43:21,960 --> 00:43:34,960
it didn't guess it didn't approximate it cited exact clauses return specific dates listed precise sources second look at the logs made the illusion obvious no new pipes no exports no mirrors upload extract

556
00:43:34,960 --> 00:43:55,960
columns ask site decide repeat the audit trail read like a metronome the only spike was in questions with receipts there's a gap worth naming search invites confidence early and regret late you feel fast until you reread the file to be sure answers invert that you feel slower for second a click into a clause

557
00:43:55,960 --> 00:44:24,960
and then you stop rereading confidence arrives with the evidence not after it that's why the silence showed up in inboxes fewer follow ups fewer just checking threads curiosity state ahead of explanation another gap we assumed smarter content what we measured was fewer places for error to hide the same and the is the same msa is the same dp is different behavior people stop treating memory as a system they let the system remember columns carried the obvious truths

558
00:44:24,960 --> 00:44:42,960
spans carried the controlling lines the wall repeated both over time the lingering question is whether this was novelty it wasn't the cadence kept time across quarters new documents landed the same columns filled the same questions produced the same shapes the same citations open to the same kinds of sentences

559
00:44:42,960 --> 00:45:12,760
the evidence kept repeating so what was actually answering not a chatbot not a parallel index a govern store whose contents were promoted to facts and an agent that refused to separate an answer from its source search expectations created the theater the system was already doing the work the surprises that nothing flashy needed to happen the room stayed the room the shelf state the shelves the guard stayed at their posts only the question changed and when it did the repository started answering back like it had always been ready to very

560
00:45:12,760 --> 00:45:42,560
terrifying the claim what the logs showed the files state where they were the only question was whether the system behaved the way it claimed the audit trail answered that upload events came first each contract showed a created operation by a human identity time stamped with the site library and item URL no mystery accounts no external IPs just the person who dropped it into the drop of library under existing permissions draft security applied immediately the visibility field

561
00:45:42,560 --> 00:46:04,160
reflected only users who can edit items nothing flashy happened extraction appeared as column updates not edits to the file edits to meta data the actor wasn't a person it was the document processing service identity authorized in the tenant operation file modified column updated effective date expiration date

562
00:46:04,160 --> 00:46:19,560
auto renewal notice window payment terms governing law the before after pairs showed null to value transitions the checksum of the file content did not change governance didn't move only the columns did label continuity was explicit

563
00:46:19,560 --> 00:46:30,760
the sensitivity label column listed the existing label the record status reflected unlocked for drafts locked on execution where policy required it

564
00:46:30,760 --> 00:47:00,680
no label change events occurred during extraction retention details showed the same policy with event based triggers tied to execution date for items designated as contracts per view kept its hand on everything question events surface next the knowledge agent recorded who asked when and the exact phrasing operation copilot query scope this library filters derived from columns response objects included a list of item it's referenced and the clause span ranges cited for the NDA

565
00:47:00,680 --> 00:47:21,280
expiry query each answer store the effective date expiration date and the span offset where the sentence lived it didn't guess it cited exact clauses return specific dates listed precise sources cross document queries look the same just larger operation copilot query

566
00:47:21,280 --> 00:47:37,380
multi libraries and the a's MSA's filters auto renewal eels yes notice window 60 the log listed materialized filter auto renewal true notice window 59 item refs enumerated both types with their clause

567
00:47:37,380 --> 00:47:57,980
spend pointers no export job no background indexing to an external service the tenant owned the question and the answer handoffs left receipts of their own e signature requests appeared as power automate runs with correlation ideas linking the item URL the signer identities and the final signature status

568
00:47:57,980 --> 00:48:11,580
complete each run had a start time action history and an outcome a companion share point version created event recorded the executed PDF with execution date and signer fields written

569
00:48:11,580 --> 00:48:27,580
there was no separate portal download no manual upload the loop closed inside the site approvals told on themselves operation list item updated with comment entries marking awaiting internal awaiting client and the identity that advanced state

570
00:48:27,580 --> 00:48:54,580
a derived column days in state incremented daily a scheduled job wrote the value without touching file content when scope changed a version created event preceded a flow resubmitted entry the past remained visible beside the present ambiguity flags were visible to extraction wrote a confidence annotation when terms included reasonable period or cross document dependencies like unless otherwise agreed in the applicable

571
00:48:54,580 --> 00:49:21,180
so w the log didn't resolve ambiguity it recorded that the model didn't claim certainty a small critical distinction decision support not automations security remained ordinary no sharing link created entries for public or anonymous access external user access to the polls false across the sample conditional access applied the same policies the tenant already enforced device compliance

572
00:49:21,180 --> 00:49:50,780
states showed as expected if someone without permission asked a question the co pilot query returned zero item refs security trimming did the quiet work failures were boring and documented a flow once halted after an owner changed a column's internal name the run history recorded a missing field error the fix restored the name subsequent runs wrote status normally a missing required field in drop off triggered a validation error the item stayed in the staging view until completed

573
00:49:50,780 --> 00:50:19,980
administrative fixes not architectural repairs the power be evidence view had no secret pipeline data source share point list transform none measures computed on extracted columns refresh history matched scheduled times no csv exports lived in downloads no shadow registers a wall of repeated facts drawn from the same columns the agent read one more check closed the loop we pull the sample of ten answers at random for each we followed the class band to the contract text

574
00:50:19,980 --> 00:50:23,980
and compared it to the answer ten of ten match the sighted line

575
00:50:23,980 --> 00:50:48,380
where ambiguity was flagged the flag was present where cross references existed both sides were recorded the contracts didn't change only the question did the logs didn't perform they described who asked what was answered which columns changed which files were cited when signatures occurred where labels persisted if someone ever asks how do you know this is how a trail that repeats the same behavior under the same rules every time

576
00:50:48,380 --> 00:51:15,180
the evidence kept repeating the metrics that actually move cycle time went first not the theoretical kind the lived kind time to answer before expiry checks took days because someone had to read after minutes because the answer arrived with a citation time to locate controlling clause before a half hour of skimming after a click into the exact span time to confirm renewal

577
00:51:15,180 --> 00:51:25,180
logical before a calendar comb after a filtered list with sources it wasn't a stopwatch trick it was latency removed where reading used to sit we saw it across the four use cases

578
00:51:25,180 --> 00:51:38,780
and the a's do we have one and is it current days collapsed to minutes msa's which require notice under sixty days minutes not afternoons so use awaiting signature beyond seven days instant because state lived as data

579
00:51:38,780 --> 00:51:54,780
dp a's whereas incident notice over seventy two hours minutes with lines already highlighted different documents same fall in cycle time errors didn't decline they disappeared no mystery nules because expiring in 30 and expiring in 60 90 weren't spreadsheets

580
00:51:54,780 --> 00:52:08,380
they were views bound to extract the dates updated without ceremony no wrong version signed because status execution date and signer lived next to version history and signature ran inside the tenant

581
00:52:08,380 --> 00:52:33,380
no misread clause because every assertion carried its paragraph the difference was quiet nothing to fix because nothing slipped process containment registered as a metric you can describe without a graph files never left Microsoft 365 signatures happened inside status came back as columns approvals locked in the item power be I read the same library every answer every hand of every receipt landed in one place

582
00:52:33,380 --> 00:52:50,380
containment wasn't a slogan was a pattern the logs kept repeating adoption showed up as absence fewer where is it emails fewer shared trackers pretending to be systems fewer urgent things before quarter close people stopped asking location questions because answer questions were faster

583
00:52:50,380 --> 00:53:02,980
the signal was subtle and strong silence were noise used to live we watch repeatability become its own metric answered with citations wasn't an option it was the default ten for ten sample checks match their spans

584
00:53:02,980 --> 00:53:28,580
ambiguities were flagged the same way every time cross references linked both sides the same way every time the evidence kept repeating governance continuity state measurable without the atrix labels persisted across extraction record states locked at execution according to policy retention triggers tied to execution or expiry visible in the pain audit entries logged who asked what was answered which files were cited security trimming

585
00:53:28,580 --> 00:53:43,580
hidden what should be hidden naturally metrics didn't need a dashboard they lived in behaviors that didn't break a compact scorecard emerged spoken not shown cycle time days to minutes errors avoided mystery

586
00:53:43,580 --> 00:54:04,580
renewals wrong versions misreads zero observed in the sample window containment one system one trail no exports adoption email and spreadsheet decay replaced by questions with receipts repeatability answers arrived with the same backing across quarters nothing flashy happened

587
00:54:04,580 --> 00:54:21,580
alternate readings were entertained could discipline alone have reduced cycle time perhaps for sprint but discipline doesn't attach clause spans to each answer could a register have kept renewals current for a while registers drift columns don't when extraction fills them

588
00:54:21,580 --> 00:54:50,580
the tenets metrics relied on the same premise ask the repository for facts expect citations one more measure matter to auditors observability not slideware not theater a question produced a log entry an extraction produced a column change a signature produced a version and a status a power be I refresh recorded its source and time each element observable each step retraceable measurable because it already was the contracts didn't change the file stayed on the shelves the shelves stayed in the room the labels

589
00:54:50,580 --> 00:55:19,580
stayed on only the question changed and when the question changed the metrics moved in ways that are hard to argue with an easy to verify under the same lights watched by the same cameras objections neutralized security accuracy and new system anxiety security comes first it always does the files never left Microsoft 365 no side car repository no vendor mirror share point remained the store sensitivity labels persisted record labels locked

590
00:55:19,580 --> 00:55:36,580
where policy required it retention triggers tied to execution or expiry say must before security trimming hid what should be hidden audit logs recorded who asked what was answered and which files were cited your existing governance was still there the whole time

591
00:55:36,580 --> 00:56:02,580
the reasonable challenges data loss prevention DLP watched in motion before it watched in motion after answers didn't bypass controls they inherited them a user without permission still saw nothing the agent used the askers access not its own no sharing links appeared no anonymous tokens no exports to see as we to fuel a dashboard containment wasn't a claim it was an absence of drift accuracy isn't a promise it's an observable behavior

592
00:56:02,580 --> 00:56:30,580
clause spans were literal the answers carried their own citations back to the paragraph that governed the fact when language was clear the span match the answer when language was ambiguous the model flagged it reasonable period unless otherwise agreed in the applicable SOW the system didn't decide it exposed the edge so humans could decision support not automation a quiet test matters more than a benchmark ten answer sampled at random ten spans matched their claims

593
00:56:30,580 --> 00:56:59,580
where cross references existed both sides were linked where ambiguity lived it was marked that's repeatability that's verifiability that's what auditors except because they can retrace it without theater then comes the anxiety is this a new system it isn't share point held the documents before it holds them after document processing road to columns you already owned knowledge agent answered against those columns power be I showed patterns from the same library

594
00:56:59,580 --> 00:57:29,380
power automate move the provils and wrote back status purview governed all of it nothing was replaced nothing was migrated only the question changed alternate explanations deserve respect could discipline metadata have solved this partially but metadata without citations still forces a reread for every exception could a spreadsheet register do it for a sprint but spreadsheets drift they duplicate they don't respect permissions they don't cite the line that matters both fall short where

595
00:57:29,380 --> 00:57:59,180
repeatability and evidence are required legal wasn't convinced at first they asked what happens when languages subtle the system surfaced both sides the clause that looked mutual and the narrowing carve out six lines later it didn't settle the interpretation it accelerated the path to it time moved from discovery to judgment minutes not afternoons it raised the quiet question about scale libraries can hold millions of items but hygiene matters the answer relied on order

596
00:57:59,180 --> 00:58:26,180
ordinary practice content types consistent columns drop off discipline required fields extraction road values views narrowed focus the agent ran filters power be I bound to the same source scale wasn't a feature it was the absence of special cases compliance asked about records records remained records labels didn't unlock to extract the processor changed columns not content event based retention still started when execution

597
00:58:26,180 --> 00:58:44,180
in the clock dispossession state under policy the presence of answers didn't weaken governance it made governance visible in the same pain as the evidence cost anxiety hides behind tooling this wasn't a rip in replace no new platform to train no data migration to fund the services already existed in the tenant

598
00:58:44,180 --> 00:59:02,180
the effort set in naming columns well enforcing intake discipline and letting the services do what they were built to do the return arrived as time you didn't spend reading change management sounded larger than it was behavior shifted because answers with citations were faster than hunts for files people

599
00:59:02,180 --> 00:59:29,180
followed speed legal verified faster finance spotted variance faster project managers acted on state faster training became short ask for facts not file names verify by clicking the citation not by rereading the PDF risk didn't vanish it became legible if a clause deviated it surfaced with the sentence that proved it if a notice window was short it appeared as a number backed by text if ambiguity remained it was labeled

600
00:59:29,180 --> 00:59:53,180
that's the posture a regulator expects show me don't tell me one more concern lingered lock in the opposite happened by keeping contracts in share point with facts as columns the organization state portable inside its own tenant no silos no proprietary indexes just documents metadata and logs that already belong to you security state ordinary accuracy

601
00:59:53,180 --> 01:00:22,180
state observable anxiety had nowhere to attach the contracts didn't change the shelves didn't move the guards didn't leave only the question changed and because the question changed objections had to contend with evidence not intent quiet starts minimal change pathways that work start small one library not a program not a roll out pick a place where the documents already behave and yes or msa's work because the shapes repeat the point isn't scale its proof begin with intake discipline turn on the

602
01:00:22,180 --> 01:00:51,180
drop off library require two fields at arrival counterparty and business owner that's it don't add eight more nice to have fields people won't fill them and you don't need them drafts remain contained permissions remain ordinary the shelf doesn't move name the columns you intend to trust effective date expiration date auto renewal notice window payment terms governing law signature status keep names boring the thing most people

603
01:00:51,180 --> 01:01:20,180
miss is that naming is the only design you need to get right the processor can't write to creative labels it writes to columns apply one extraction model not ten start with dates renewals and parties that's enough to create motion the model reads the file where it sits it writes those fields if the text is ambiguous it flags if the closet standard it sites clarity first completeness later turn on asking for a small group site owners one legal contact one business owner who actually

604
01:01:20,180 --> 01:01:40,180
faces contracts give the knowledge agent permission to answer in that library then see the behavior with two plane questions which n d a's expire in the next 30 days and which msa's have auto renewal with notice under 60 days let the answer show up with citations don't announce a pilot just answer questions publish one evidence view power be I is fine

605
01:01:40,180 --> 01:02:07,180
minimal polish bind it directly to the library show counts by expiry window auto renewal prevalence and notice window distribution nothing else no vanity charts pin it on a wall where the people who ask questions can see repetition the evidence kept repeating leave purview alone your retention labels record states and sensitivity rules already work don't unbolt anything you're proving continuity not change if someone

606
01:02:07,180 --> 01:02:22,180
asks what moved your answer should be only columns within a week at one more column that ties action to state days to expiry or days in state let the system computed save a view that filters on the obvious thresholds that's

607
01:02:22,180 --> 01:02:36,180
enough for the first quiet win expiring in 30 appears without effort awaiting signature seven days appears without emails people notice because minutes replace afternoons expect one inconvenient hiccup a flow that depends

608
01:02:36,180 --> 01:02:52,180
on a renamed column a required field someone removed fixes are administrative restore the name restore the rule the point of starting small is that you can repair without theater add one skeptical observer legal or compliance ask them to pick three contracts

609
01:02:52,180 --> 01:03:04,180
at random from an answer list follow the citations into the text if a clause is unclear the ambiguity flag should be visible if a cross reference exists both sides should open this is the moment to earn trust not by persuasion by

610
01:03:04,180 --> 01:03:26,180
retracing avoid the training day send a single short note ask for facts not file names verify with the citation not with a reread if you must explain more you're doing too much the system convinces by making the path shorter not by making the deck longer after two weeks widen the circle by one library not by a department

611
01:03:26,180 --> 01:03:48,180
so we're good second step because state lives as data at signature status awaiting role and days in state let the signature hand off right back execution ask the one question every project lead cares about which so w's have been awaiting client signature more than seven days answers arrive with receipts containment proves itself resist the instinct to

612
01:03:48,180 --> 01:04:08,680
enumerate features keep the rhythm intake extract ask side decide repeat if someone asks for a road map point to the wall patterns over time the evidence kept repeating you'll know it's working when questions change tense fewer where is the contract more what does the contract require that shift

613
01:04:08,680 --> 01:04:22,680
arrives without a kickoff without a champion without a portal it arrives because the room already had answers you just let them answer back nothing flashy happens no migrations no new platforms one library becomes two two views become

614
01:04:22,680 --> 01:04:51,680
four the same label stay on the same shelves hold the same logs record only the question changes and once the question changes minimal change is enough the evidence wall patterns not dashboards the wall didn't predict it confirmed a single view bound to one truth the library no exports no side registers counts by week expires by window auto renewal prevalence notice distributions payment term variance

615
01:04:51,680 --> 01:05:20,680
jurisdiction clusters all drawn from columns the system already wrote boring by design what repeated was simple the same queries produced the same shapes and the a's float in bursts trade show weeks partner on boardings then quieted the expiring in 30 count rows and fell in a gentle sawtooth no interventions just dates becoming rose then leaving the pattern didn't need color it needed to be visible the MSA's told on themselves a thin stripe of net 60 vendors

616
01:05:20,680 --> 01:05:40,680
held quarter after quarter a small ridge of 30 day notice windows persisted where policy preferred 60 outliers didn't shout they sat against the backdrop of conformity finance didn't argue charts they clicked a bar and saw the same sentences they'd already accepted now repeated across time the evidence kept repeating

617
01:05:40,680 --> 01:05:56,680
so displayed latency as a rhythm awaiting internal spikes clustered mid-month awaiting client lingered over holidays the counts didn't shame they informed project leads learned to look at the wall on Mondays not for a dashboard thrill but for a list of states that needed decisions

618
01:05:56,680 --> 01:06:05,680
status moved because state became public DPA's surfaced exposure without panic the share of undue delay notices stayed low

619
01:06:05,680 --> 01:06:17,680
the slice of SEC references shifted as templates updated a small stubborn wedge of unilateral audit rights held in one region compliance didn't build a slide they opened the list behind the wedge and read the clauses

620
01:06:17,680 --> 01:06:34,680
patterns over time receipts on click what surprised wasn't trend lines it was low variance where everyone expected chaos extraction wrote renewal logic the same way across messy histories knowledge agent cited indemnity with identical span behavior across formats

621
01:06:34,680 --> 01:06:57,680
the wall made consistency legible the thing most people miss is how calming repetition becomes when it's grounded the evidence kept repeating we resisted embellishment no drill circus no animated transitions three pivots maximum each tile a doorway back to the shelf vendor names under net 60 agreements with notice under 60 days

622
01:06:57,680 --> 01:07:20,680
so double use awaiting signature beyond seven dp a's with breach windows over 72 hours click close close decide the path stayed short stay cold is trusted because nothing live behind it that didn't already exist data source the library measures arithmetic on columns refresh scheduled visible there were no csv's in someone's downloads

623
01:07:20,680 --> 01:07:47,680
no analytics workspace holding a parallel truth if an auditor asked where did this come from the answer was a URL not a diagram the wall taught restraint when someone asked for bookings versus contract value versus margin trend the response state the same this is a contract wall not a revenue model it shows what agreements require when they renew where they deviate and how long states persist if you want more ask a better contract question

624
01:07:47,680 --> 01:08:14,680
the room answered those we added one tile we didn't expect to keep ambiguity flags over time it held the count of reasonable period clauses trended down after a template change the count of unless otherwise agreed in the applicable so we remain steady legal use the tile as a nudge not a score board ambiguity didn't vanish it became measurable security never changed for the wall to work security

625
01:08:14,680 --> 01:08:37,680
trimming filter tiles the same way it filtered answers a user saw only their data shaped as counts sensitivity label stayed on record stayed locked retention remained visible evidence can sit in public view when it's trimmed by design the quiet pay off arrived when the wall became a habit Monday check ins replaced status meetings quarter and escalation

626
01:08:37,680 --> 01:09:07,640
so often because variance was visible all quarter the power be I app icon didn't become a destination the library did the wall was just a mirror nothing flashy happened no storytelling with gradients no KPI theater a surface that reflected the same answers the agent gave repeated over time under the same lights on the same shelves the contracts didn't change only the question did recurring pattern from files to answers across all four cases the pattern didn't start with the feature it started with this

627
01:09:07,640 --> 01:09:27,640
discipline intake extract ask site decide repeat for different contract types the same backbone the same behavior under governance that never moved and the a showed volume without drama a drop of library to required fields and an extraction pass that wrote effective date expiry date renewal logic notice window

628
01:09:27,640 --> 01:09:49,640
agent answered questions with lists not hunches and every list carried citations back to the sentence that control did risk wasn't argued it was verified MSAs exposed money hiding in the middle columns for auto renewal notice windows payment terms limitation of liability questions ran as filters answers arrived as rose with cloth spans finance stopped

629
01:09:49,640 --> 01:09:56,640
the dating discovery they started deciding acceptance the wall confirmed variance across quarters patterns not theater

630
01:09:56,640 --> 01:10:17,640
S.O.s proved that friction is a state problem not a content problem status lived as data signature ran inside Microsoft 365 handoffs wrote back to the item the question where is it became how long has it been here the agent returned awaiting client older than seven days with receipts latency left the inbox and appeared in a column

631
01:10:17,640 --> 01:10:36,640
D.P.A.'s put exposure under lights without alarms data categories transfer mechanisms breach windows audit rights governing law one query surfaced undue delay another grouped SEC versions by citation ambiguity was marked where it lived decision support not automation compliance

632
01:10:36,640 --> 01:10:53,640
read the sentence that would matter later across all for the same signals appeared cycle time fell from days to minutes because answers were grounded error stopped happening because lists were views not spreadsheets process stayed inside Microsoft 365 because nothing

633
01:10:53,640 --> 01:11:04,640
left the tenant to finish a loop adoption showed up as silence because questions with receipts were faster than hunts for files citations did more than persuade they stabilized trust

634
01:11:04,640 --> 01:11:33,640
a close span is a small precise thing it travels well in conversations that used to move on anecdotes show me became a click is that true became do we accept it legal and finance worked on judgment not retrieval governance continuity did more than reassure it prevented drift share point remained the store purview labels persisted records locked on execution retention tied to events security trimming filtered lists and walls the same way it filtered libraries answers arrived

635
01:11:33,640 --> 01:11:55,640
answers arrived exactly where controls already stood no silos no mirrors alternate explanations never fit across all four spreadsheets can list expires they can sight clauses email reminders can nudge approvals they can't write days in state tied to version history external portals can sign they split the trail the recurring pattern required one surface one store one set of rules the stacks

636
01:11:55,640 --> 01:12:10,640
ordinary matter share point libraries and columns document processing writing values knowledge agent answering against those values with citations power be I reflecting repetition from the same source power automate closing loops and writing back no new

637
01:12:10,640 --> 01:12:24,640
platform no migration the same tools aligned one more repetition closed the arc random samples of answers trace back to the same line in the same files quarter after quarter ambiguity flags persisted where language stayed soft

638
01:12:24,640 --> 01:12:46,640
cross references linked both sides were precedents lived observability state intact in logs the evidence kept repeating the contracts didn't get smarter they got questioned differently files remained files they just answered back when asked for facts under the same lights on the same shelves with the same guards nothing new was installed something new was noticed if you remember one thing remember

639
01:12:46,640 --> 01:13:07,640
this your contracts already answer questions when you let columns carry facts and citations return the lines that govern them try it tomorrow ask one plane question in a live tenant and follow the citation to the exact clause if that clicks subscribe for the follow up on scaling knowledge agents without breaking governance

640
01:13:07,640 --> 01:13:23,640
and here unresolved edge case where humans stay in the loop some edges don't close they shouldn't close ambiguity lives where language is deliberate within a reasonable period unless otherwise agreed in the applicable so

641
01:13:23,640 --> 01:13:36,640
material breaches determined by the system does not resolve these it flags them it anchors the flag to the sentence that creates the uncertainty it keeps the human in the loop on purpose

642
01:13:36,640 --> 01:13:50,640
their contract types behave the same way bespoke research agreements one of jv term sheets old scans within consistent pagination non-English text that mixes jurisdictional phrasing with local idiom

643
01:13:50,640 --> 01:14:05,640
extraction can read the obvious dates parties and still mark the rest as low confidence it will surface the lines it thinks control it will not pretend to understand what the business is willing to accept that remains judgment non-English documents add a layer

644
01:14:05,640 --> 01:14:15,640
in law phrases shift in meaning across languages the model can capture a renewal date and still flag the clause because the nuance of tacit

645
01:14:15,640 --> 01:14:30,640
reconduction isn't a binary field the behavior stays consistent side the text show the span mark the uncertainty decision support not automation bespoke amendments create cross document edges

646
01:14:30,640 --> 01:14:47,640
so w that overrides the msa notice window in a footnote a side letter that narrows indemnity for a single project the agent can follow the cross reference inside both sides it can't decide precedence in a vacuum it won't it will show the trail so humans can decide with the right pages open

647
01:14:47,640 --> 01:14:59,640
poor scans are noise not failure OCR will misread a digit the system exposes the column the span and the file a human corrects the column once the view updates everywhere the audit log records the change

648
01:14:59,640 --> 01:15:14,640
flow depends on visibility not perfection these edges don't weaken the claim they define it the store remains governed the facts remain sightable the models restraint is part of the trust posture where certainty ends flags begin

649
01:15:14,640 --> 01:15:28,640
where languages soft the system stays quiet and points where stakes are high humans decide if a regulator asks did you know the trail is still the answer a flagged ambiguity with a span is knowledge a low confidence field with a pointer is knowledge

650
01:15:28,640 --> 01:15:56,640
cross reference with both links is knowledge not closure not theater just enough to move judgment to the right page faster nothing new was installed to handle the edges the behavior stayed the same ask sight decide the guardrails remained the shelves remained the questions just reached places where silence is part of the method right for truth first extend for curiosity second

651
01:15:56,640 --> 01:16:17,640
space for uncertainty where the document asks you to that's how answers state trust worthy that's how silence feels intentional not empty source discipline and limits fact stayed within Microsoft 365 share point libraries columns you can name and verify knowledge agent answering with citations document processing writing metadata power be I

652
01:16:17,640 --> 01:16:42,640
reading the same source power automate recording handoffs purview enforcing labels retention and audit nothing beyond that stack was claimed the clause extraction we referenced maps to Microsoft's document processing for Microsoft 365 and AI builder capabilities parties dates renewal logic payment terms governing law output as column updates not content edits

653
01:16:42,640 --> 01:17:11,640
where language was vague we stated ambiguity was flagged that's a practice pattern not a guarantee of edge case resolution knowledge agent behavior was described as question first with citations we did not claim model internals training data or accuracy percentages we claimed observable outcomes rose returned filters matching columns span pointers back to text and audit entries recording who asked and what was cited decision support not auto

654
01:17:11,640 --> 01:17:35,640
not automation e signature references stayed inside Microsoft 365 integrations requests issued from word or a share point item status written back as columns executed copies saved in the same library with execution date and sign a record it we did not assert specific providers or pricing only that signatures and status remained contained purview governance

655
01:17:35,640 --> 01:18:03,640
governance remained as described in public guidance sensitivity labels persistent content record labels lock according to policy retention can be event based execution or expiry DLP and security trimming continue to apply we did not alter those controls in any narrative step we observe them operating alongside answers power be I was used as an evidence wall data source the contract library measures arithmetic on existing columns

656
01:18:03,640 --> 01:18:32,640
no side registers no exports patterns over time not forecasts we avoided claims of predictive accuracy or causal inference only repetition drawn from the same truth others could inspect performance statements state qualitative and verifiable by workflow days to minutes on time to answer not end to end legal adjudication errors stopped happening limited to missed renewals and wrong version signatures within the observed sample not a universal guarantee

657
01:18:32,640 --> 01:19:01,640
where we said sample we meant human spot checks with clause span verification limits matter rare clause types non-English contracts poor scans or highly bespoke amendments can reduce extraction reliability human review remains required for interpretation negotiation and acceptance the system can surface the line it cannot decide what your risk appetite is scope matters we did not cover as your open AI internals custom LLM

658
01:19:01,640 --> 01:19:26,640
fine tuning or heavy power apps UI we did not replace legal review procurement policy or records management programs we showed how existing services can expose evidence inside the tenant you already govern when uncertainty remained we said so no secret sources no invented benchmarks the contracts didn't change only the question did the governance state visible the whole time