AI due diligence can go beyond an initial overview of contracts. In the CASUS dossier chat, you can work with transaction documents and have a draft report prepared using an attached DD template. The crucial distinction is this: the template determines the structure; the transaction documents provide the facts. Before approving the report, check material findings and their legal significance against the original documents.
The practical starting point is familiar: you have a review mandate, a set of documents with different structures and a report template from your law firm or legal department. Contracts, amendments and correspondence need to become a report the transaction team can work from. Simply summarising the files is not enough.
This article sets out a workflow from defining the review mandate to checking the draft report. The accompanying example is fictional and illustrates the method. It is neither a client matter nor the result of a CASUS product test.
Define the review mandate before asking the first question
First, define what the review needs to establish. In a buyer-side contract review, you may be interested in change-of-control rights, material termination rights and missing schedules. A seller-side review may have a different mandate. The chat should not have to infer this perspective from the file name.
Record at least:
the transaction, the company being reviewed and the party's perspective;
the jurisdiction and the review cut-off date;
the topics included and the areas expressly excluded;
which open issues are particularly important to the transaction team.
In our fictional example, we are reviewing the acquisition of Nordlicht Komponenten GmbH from the buyer's perspective. The focus is on customer and supplier relationships. This is not a comprehensive corporate, tax or employment due diligence review. That limitation also needs to appear in the report.
Prepare the transaction documents in the dossier
A CASUS dossier provides the workspace for related documents and your questions. Before starting the analysis, establish which files fall within the review and how they relate to one another.
In the example, there are eight documents: a customer framework agreement, its amendment, two supply agreements, a licence agreement, a data protection agreement, relevant email correspondence and a document index. The report template is added separately as an instruction for the work, not as evidence about the transaction.
File names should identify the document, party and version. Also check whether the contract is signed, whether pages are missing and whether the text is reliably legible. Uploading a passage that is difficult to read does not automatically make it a reliable factual basis.
Record missing schedules in the index from the outset. A contractual reference to a service-level agreement does not mean that its contents are available in the dossier. The same applies to amendments that are mentioned but have not been provided. These gaps must remain open issues.
Use the DD report template for structure, not as evidence
Attach a suitable template and explicitly state its purpose. It can determine the chapter order, the presentation of individual findings and the style. For example, a structure covering the scope of review, executive summary, individual findings and outstanding documents may be suitable.
A cleaned-up template is easier to use than a report from a previous matter. Where possible, remove former parties' names, confidential information and case descriptions that are no longer needed. If you use an existing report as a model, its content must be clearly separated from the new transaction.
The instruction to the chat should therefore include:
Use the file "DD report template" solely for structure, style and presentation. Do not take any parties, contract details, findings, risk ratings or recommendations from it. The factual basis consists only of the expressly identified transaction documents.
Even an empty example row marked "low risk" does not set the rating for a new finding. If information is missing, the draft should identify the gap rather than fill in the template's example.
Work on focused review tasks in the dossier
Rather than immediately asking the chat to "carry out the full due diligence", you can first address material topics individually. This makes it easier to trace which documents support a statement and where follow-up questions are needed.
An initial task in the example is:
Review the customer and supply agreements provided for change-of-control provisions. Take related amendments into account. For each finding, identify the document, contract version and precise source reference. Distinguish between consent requirements, notification obligations and termination rights. Flag unclear wording and missing documents. Do not automatically treat provisions that have not been found as ruled out.
You can then examine a finding more closely: which event does the clause cover? Does the amendment change it? Does the correspondence establish that consent has been given, or merely that it has been requested?
The instruction helps to limit the task. It does not guarantee that every relevant finding will be identified or correctly assessed. Particularly important contractual relationships therefore need targeted review of the original documents even if the initial answer flags no issues.
Check material findings against the original documents
A source reference is the starting point for verification, not its conclusion. Open the cited passage and read it in context. Definitions, exceptions and subsequent amendments may change the initial summary.
For each material issue, check:
Attribution: Does the source relate to the correct company and contractual relationship?
Version: Have amendments and the relevant document version been taken into account?
Statement: Does the original text actually support the obligation or right asserted?
Completeness: Are schedules or information missing that could change the assessment?
Significance: What does the finding mean for this transaction and the agreed review mandate?
Keep the source evidence separate from the legal assessment. The contract may contain a consent requirement; whether the proposed transaction structure triggers it and how to address it require further review. An email with the subject line "Consent" does not, in itself, establish that the required consent has been validly given.
Our article on AI hallucinations and source verification takes a closer look at handling unsupported or incorrect AI statements.
Create a DD report in the dossier chat using your own template
Once the scope of review and material findings are clear, ask the dossier chat to prepare a draft report using the attached template. Specify again which files may be used and the limits of the mandate. Earlier chat results should not become final findings without verification.
One possible instruction:
Prepare a legal due diligence report for the proposed acquisition of Nordlicht Komponenten GmbH from the buyer's perspective. Use the attached DD report template for structure, style and presentation.
Consider only the identified transaction documents and the agreed scope of review. Do not take any facts or findings from the template. Support material findings with the document, contract version and source reference.
Distinguish between substantiated facts, preliminary legal assessments and open questions. Explicitly identify missing documents. Do not present unverified assumptions as results. Summarise the material findings and open issues in the executive summary; they must be traceable to the individual sections.
A useful individual finding contains more than a colour-coded risk rating. It describes the provision, its source, its potential significance for the transaction and the next review step required. If your template uses risk categories, provide their definitions. The responsible legal team assigns the final risk rating.
Practical example: an amendment and a missing schedule in the report
The fictional customer framework agreement requires prior written consent for a specified change of control. A later amendment exempts an expressly identified intra-group restructuring. The documents provided do not establish that the proposed acquisition falls within this exception. An attached email requests consent; no response granting consent has been provided.
A manually drafted finding for this scenario could be structured as follows:
Component | Content of the example finding |
|---|---|
Finding | The framework agreement contains a consent requirement. The amendment provides for a limited exception. |
Basis | Framework agreement, clause 12.3; amendment, section 2; attached email requesting consent. |
Open question | Does the specific transaction fall within the exception? Has any required consent been obtained? |
Next step | Review the transaction structure and request the missing consent documents. |
This table is an editorial example, not CASUS output. It shows why a summary stating "no change-of-control issues" would be inadequate.
The contract also refers to a service-level agreement that is missing. No final finding can yet be made about the agreed performance metrics or legal consequences. Instead, the report identifies the missing schedule and the open questions that depend on it. A completed chapter is not proof of a completed review.
When the AI Data Room complements dossier work
If you want to compare the same information across numerous contracts, an additional tabular analysis may be useful. In the CASUS AI Data Room, you define the information you want as columns and receive a document-by-document overview.
For due diligence, this might include parties, term, change-of-control provisions and limitations of liability. The table supports systematic initial extraction of information. You then examine unusual or particularly important contractual relationships in greater depth against the documents.
Dossiers and the AI Data Room therefore address different working needs: in the dossier, you work on the specific transaction and prepare the draft report. The table makes it easier to compare recurring attributes consistently. This implies neither automatic transfer between the two features nor comprehensive identification of risks.
Check the report, access and approval
Read the report not only section by section, but also across sections: are the executive summary, individual findings and list of open issues consistent? Is an unresolved finding suddenly presented as resolved elsewhere? Have old names or details been copied from the template?
The final review also covers document versions, source references, risk assessments and recommendations. Establish who will follow up on open issues and who will approve the report from a legal perspective. Supplementary legal research should remain clearly distinguishable from statements about the specific document set.
Confidentiality starts before upload. Check which documents you are permitted to use for the mandate, who needs access and which agreements and security requirements must be observed. Take sensitive information into account when sharing the finished report too. The CASUS security information is a starting point for assessing the provider, not a substitute for your own decision on whether to approve its use.
If you would like to try this workflow, you can try CASUS. Start with a manageable set of documents you are permitted to review and a cleaned-up template. Assess its usefulness by how well the findings can be traced and how much checking the draft report still requires, not merely by its length or professional appearance.
FAQ
Can I have a DD report prepared in the dossier using my own template?
Yes. You can attach a report template to the dossier chat to specify the structure and presentation, and have a draft prepared from the transaction documents. Explicitly identify which files serve as evidence and which serve only as a template. Then check the sources, assessments and open issues.
Can I use a report from a previous matter as a template?
A cleaned-up example can be helpful for structure and style. Former parties' names, facts and assessments must not be carried over to the new transaction. Confidential content should not be retained unnecessarily as an example. Even with clear instructions, you need to check the draft for such carry-over.
What is the difference between Dossiers and the AI Data Room in due diligence?
Dossiers are used to work with related documents, follow-up questions and draft reports. The AI Data Room supports tabular extraction of the same types of information for each document. The appropriate approach depends on your review mandate. This does not imply a fully automated review or synchronisation between the two features.
What should I do about missing documents or conflicting information?
Flag the gap or conflict and record which statement depends on it. If an amendment is missing, you must not silently treat the contract as unchanged. Formulate a specific follow-up question and update the assessment once the relevant documents are available.
Is an AI-generated DD report already an approved review result?
No. A draft report must be checked for accurate sources, completeness of the relevant documents and sound assessments. The executive summary must not anticipate the resolution of open issues. Responsibility, depth of review and approval are governed by the agreed mandate and remain with the responsible team.
