Tell the model what matters in this document…


Hi Renata. I’m Rampt, Assay’s first-session guide. My job is to get one real document through a review you’d actually act on, and then get out of your way.


Three quick questions, the same ones a founder would ask on a welcome call. First: what are you putting through this? Not the category, the actual document on your desk.


A vendor contract before we sign it


Second: if this review misses something, what does that cost you? Be specific, it changes what gets flagged.


My signature on something that was wrong


Last one, and it matters most: who has been doing this review by hand until now?


Me, at 11pm, with a checklist


That’s everything I need. Watch the screen: I’ll set the review up and narrate each step, so you could do it yourself next time.


Setting the review scope, in your own words…


Naming the document so you can find it again…


Running the review. This usually takes about 10 seconds; the findings land on screen as they come back.


Done, in 10 seconds. 4 findings, and the model puts its agreement with expert reviewers at 94.2 percent. Worth reading that number the other way round: roughly one in 17 of these is wrong, and the screen doesn’t say which.


So here’s the one to look at. Finding F3, Clause 11.4, Assignment, came back at 0.41, the only one under the 0.50 line Assay’s own model sets. I’ve highlighted it. Open its source before you decide anything: nine times in ten that score means the model read a clause literally where a person would read the exception next to it.


And a gap rather than a mistake: Exhibit B, referenced in clause 4.1 and never included in the upload. The header says 18 of 19 sections and doesn’t say which one is missing. It’s that one. Nothing in it was reviewed, so nothing in it is cleared.


Exhibit B, referenced in clause 4.1 and never included in the upload


One thing left, and it’s deliberately yours: Approve and send. I don’t press it, because yours is the name that goes on this.


That’s review one signed off. That was the whole job. I’ll leave you to it.


Hi Iris. I’m Rampt, Assay’s first-session guide. My job is to get one real document through a review you’d actually act on, and then get out of your way.


Evidence for an audit next month


A regulator finding it before we do


Nobody. That is the problem


That didn’t work: the review service failed after 2 seconds. That’s on Assay’s side, not you. Your answers are saved and I’m retrying now. If it fails again, I’ll flag exactly where you got stranded so a human follows up.


Done, in 4 seconds. 4 findings, and the model puts its agreement with expert reviewers at 93.6 percent. Worth reading that number the other way round: roughly one in 16 of these is wrong, and the screen doesn’t say which.


So here’s the one to look at. Finding F3, Control CC1.4, Background checks, came back at 0.38, the only one under the 0.50 line Assay’s own model sets. I’ve highlighted it. Open its source before you decide anything: nine times in ten that score means the model read a clause literally where a person would read the exception next to it.


And a gap rather than a mistake: the vendor risk register, referenced in section 5 and never included in the upload. The header says 23 of 24 sections and doesn’t say which one is missing. It’s that one. Nothing in it was reviewed, so nothing in it is cleared.


the vendor risk register, referenced in section 5 and never included in the upload


a vendor MSA we are signing Friday


a liability cap we cannot live with


outside counsel, at $600 an hour


audit evidence for CC6.1


a financial model I did not build


Hi Marga. I’m Rampt, Assay’s first-session guide. My job is to get one real document through a review you’d actually act on, and then get out of your way.


Three quick questions, the same ones a founder would ask on a welcome call. First: what are you putting through this? Not the category, the actual document on your desk.


A vendor contract before we sign it


Second: if this review misses something, what does that cost you? Be specific, it changes what gets flagged.


Last one, and it matters most: who has been doing this review by hand until now?


That’s everything I need. Watch the screen: I’ll set the review up and narrate each step, so you could do it yourself next time.


Setting the review scope, in your own words…


Naming the document so you can find it again…


Running the review. This usually takes about 10 seconds; the findings land on screen as they come back.


Done, in 5 seconds. 4 findings, and the model puts its agreement with expert reviewers at 94.2 percent. Worth reading that number the other way round: roughly one in 17 of these is wrong, and the screen doesn’t say which.


So here’s the one to look at. Finding F3, Clause 11.4, Assignment, came back at 0.41, the only one under the 0.50 line Assay’s own model sets. I’ve highlighted it. Open its source before you decide anything: nine times in ten that score means the model read a clause literally where a person would read the exception next to it.


And a gap rather than a mistake: Exhibit B, referenced in clause 4.1 and never included in the upload. The header says 18 of 19 sections and doesn’t say which one is missing. It’s that one. Nothing in it was reviewed, so nothing in it is cleared.


One thing left, and it’s deliberately yours: Approve and send. I don’t press it, because yours is the name that goes on this.