For anyone who signs contracts
Know what you're agreeing to before you sign.
ReasonQA reads a contract the way a careful in-house lawyer would, and flags the problems that hide between the clauses — like an indemnity that quietly cancels your liability cap, or a deadline you can't actually meet. Plain English, in about fifteen minutes.
2 free contracts. No credit card.
What you get back
Every analysis ends with one of three clear signals describing what was found — never advice on whether to sign.
No critical defects detected. The contract is internally consistent and complete. This does not assess commercial reasonableness or whether the deal is right for you.
No critical defects, but several non-trivial structural issues. Each finding describes what was detected; review them to determine whether each is intentional.
At least one critical defect — for example, an indemnity that overrides the liability cap, a clause that depends on a document that doesn’t exist yet, or a deadline the contract makes impossible to meet.
What it finds
The kinds of issue ReasonQA surfaces. Each finding names the clause and tells you what to fix.
Incomplete fields
Blank names, unfilled dates, placeholder text. The contract literally cannot be executed in its current form.
Undefined terms
A capitalised term used in the body of the agreement but never defined anywhere — typical when templates get edited.
Missing cross-references
A clause references “Schedule 3” but no Schedule 3 exists in the document. Catches copy-paste errors.
Asymmetric provisions
One party has a right or obligation the other doesn't. Sometimes intentional, often overlooked.
Uncapped indemnities
Indemnity provisions with no financial cap or time limit. Standard practice is to cap them.
Obligations without remedies
A party is required to do something but the contract specifies no consequence for failure.
Survival gaps
Confidentiality, IP, indemnity provisions that should survive termination but aren't expressly stated to.
Circular definitions
Term A is defined by reference to Term B, which is defined by reference to Term A. The definition doesn't resolve.
Issues a careful read misses
We ran a routine Data Processing Agreement — a clinical genomics lab outsourcing data services to a vendor — through structural analysis. It looked competent: Standard Contractual Clauses, a UK Addendum, detailed technical security measures.
3 critical · 3 high · 5 further issues
A data-protection indemnity expressly disapplies every limitation and exclusion in the underlying services contract — no cap, no time limit, no carve-out for indirect loss. One clause silently unwinds the protection of another.
Fix: Cap the indemnity, restore the underlying liability framework, or both.
The recitals say the master services agreement “is being negotiated” — yet the DPA cross-references that contract for the scope of processing, processing instructions, and dispute resolution. The operative terms point at a contract that does not yet exist.
Fix: Execute the master services agreement first, or self-contain the operative terms in the DPA.
The processor must obtain the client's prior written approval before releasing any breach communication. Statutory breach notification deadlines are fixed. The processor can be forced to choose between breaching the contract and breaching the law.
Fix: Carve out legally-required breach notifications from the approval gate.
The main body requires breach notification within 72 hours; an appendix requires notification of a security incident within 24 hours. Same event, two deadlines, no cross-reference reconciling them.
Fix: Harmonise the deadline across both clauses.
Findings from an anonymised real Data Processing Agreement, analysed by the current pipeline.
Every finding comes with the argument against it
ReasonQA doesn't just flag issues — for each one it gives you the strongest good-faith case that the drafting is actually fine, the plain-English consequence if you leave it, and the kind of change that would resolve it.
The risk register shows every finding with: what it means in plain English, what happens if you don't fix it, the counter-argument a drafter would make in its defence, and a space to record your decision — accept the risk, mitigate it, or escalate to a lawyer.
Fix an issue, re-upload, see what resolved — in two minutes
Found an issue? Fix it in your document and re-upload. The next analysis shows which findings resolved and which remain — without paying a credit each time. The natural workflow for negotiating a contract.
Unlimited revisions within 30 days of each analysis.
Who uses this
Founders and operators
Service agreements, NDAs, partnership agreements, terms of business you're asked to sign. Catches the obvious problems before you spend on a lawyer, and gives you a sharper question to ask when you do.
In-house teams
Pre-counsel triage. Run incoming third-party drafts through ReasonQA first, fix the structural defects yourself, send the cleaner draft to outside counsel with a curated issues list.
Research and academic teams
Data transfer agreements with universities, collaboration agreements, consultancy contracts. Particularly good at catching incomplete schedules and undefined terms in templated agreements.
Anyone iterating on a draft
The 30-day revision window means you can fix an issue, re-upload, and check it's resolved — without paying a credit each time. The natural workflow for negotiating a contract.
A solicitor charges £400–£1,200 to review a single contract.
ReasonQA Pro is £200/month for 20 contracts. Unlimited revisions for 30 days after each analysis.
ReasonQA does not replace a solicitor for contract negotiation or legal advice. It is a structural review tool that lets you arrive at counsel with a sharper question.
What this tool is not
Not legal advice. Findings are structural, not legal. Whether a clause has the legal effect you want is a question for a qualified solicitor.
Not commercial advice. ReasonQA does not assess whether terms are market-standard or commercially favourable. A structurally sound contract can still be a bad deal.
Not litigation prep. For courtroom-bound documents — opinions, skeleton arguments, advisory memos — use the legal-document mode instead.
Documents are deleted from our servers after processing. Reports are retained in your account until you delete them. AI processing uses zero data retention — your contract content is not stored by any third party after analysis.