Document generation

How to use LOIS for Word Composer to generate reports, client emails, issue lists, and other structured outputs directly from your contract review sessions.

Document generation means transforming your contract analysis into usable outputs – reports for executives, emails to counterparties, comparison tables, or escalation memos. The goal is creating documents that communicate clearly and drive action.

Core document types

The deviation report

Shows how a contract differs from your standard:

Request: "Create a deviation report comparing this to our template"

Format:
| Clause | Their Language | Our Standard | Risk Level | Action |
|--------|---------------|--------------|------------|---------|

This format makes deviations instantly visible and actionable.

The issues list

Prioritized problems for internal review:

Critical Issues (Must Fix):
1. Uncapped liability - Section 8.2
2. No termination rights - Section 12

Medium Priority (Should Address):
3. 90-day payment terms - Section 4.1

Low Priority (Nice to Have):
4. Venue in their state - Section 15.3

The executive summary

High-level overview for leadership:

Deal: SaaS Agreement with [Customer]
Value: $2M annually
Key Risks: Unlimited liability, no cap on indemnification
Recommendation: Proceed with specific carve-outs
Required Approvals: CFO for extended payment terms

Keep it to one page with clear decision points.

The comparison table

For evaluating multiple options:

| Vendor | Price | Payment Terms | Liability Cap | Recommendation |
|--------|-------|---------------|---------------|----------------|
| A      | $100K | Net 30        | 12 months     | Best overall   |
| B      | $90K  | Net 60        | Unlimited     | Too risky      |
| C      | $95K  | Net 30        | 24 months     | Acceptable     |

Email templates

To counterparty - opening position

Structure for initial redlines:

Subject: [Company] Comments on MSA

Thank you for sending the agreement. We've reviewed and have some suggested updates to align with our standard requirements:

[2-3 key changes summarized]

The attached document contains our specific suggestions. We're happy to discuss any questions.

Best regards,

To counterparty - pushback response

When they reject your changes:

We understand your position on [issue]. To find middle ground, we could:

Option 1: [Compromise]
Option 2: [Alternative approach]

This addresses your concern about [their issue] while protecting [our need].

Internal escalation

Getting leadership involved:

Subject: Approval Needed - [Deal Name] Terms

Summary: [Customer] requires terms outside our playbook.

Non-standard terms:
• Unlimited liability for data breach
• 90-day payment (standard is 30)

Business impact: $2M revenue at risk

Recommendation: Accept payment terms, counter on liability

Decision needed by: [Date]

Report formats

The risk assessment

Structured evaluation of exposure:

Risk Assessment - [Agreement Name]

High Risks:
- Unlimited liability (Financial exposure: Potentially $10M+)
- IP indemnity without carve-outs (Legal exposure: Defense costs)

Medium Risks:
- 60-day termination notice (Operational impact: Extended commitment)

Low Risks:
- Their choice of venue (Cost impact: Minimal)

Overall Assessment: Proceed with modifications to high-risk items

The compliance report

For regulated industries:

GDPR Compliance Review - [Vendor] DPA

Compliant Provisions:
✓ Data breach notification (72 hours)
✓ Right to audit
✓ Sub-processor restrictions

Gaps Identified:
✗ Missing data retention schedule
✗ No deletion confirmation process
✗ Unclear cross-border transfer mechanism

Required Additions: [Specific language needed]

The negotiation summary

Post-negotiation documentation:

Negotiation Summary - [Date]

Initial Positions:
- Us: Liability cap at 12 months
- Them: Unlimited liability

Final Agreement:
- Liability cap at 24 months with carve-outs for data breach

Concessions Made:
- Accepted their venue
- Extended payment terms to 45 days

Wins Achieved:
- Got liability cap (saved potential $5M exposure)
- Kept our termination rights

Formatting best practices

Use structure for scannability

Break information into digestible sections:

• Headers for major topics
• Bullets for lists
• Tables for comparisons
• Bold for key points

Lead with the bottom line

Put conclusions first:

Recommendation: Proceed with these three changes...

Supporting Detail: [Analysis follows]

Include specific references

Always cite sections:

Issue: Unlimited liability (Section 8.3)
Not: Liability concerns exist

Quantify when possible

Make impacts concrete:

Risk: Could cost up to $500K annually
Not: Expensive provision

Creating actionable documents

Clear next steps

End every document with what happens next:

Next Steps:
1. Legal to send revised draft by Tuesday
2. Schedule call if they reject liability cap
3. Escalate to CFO if payment terms remain at 90 days

Decision points

Make it clear what needs to be decided:

Decisions Required:
□ Accept their limitation of liability?
□ Approve exception to payment terms?
□ Authorize legal to accept their venue?

Success criteria

Define what good looks like:

Minimum Acceptable Terms:
- Liability cap no greater than $5M
- Payment terms no longer than 60 days
- Ability to terminate with 30 days notice

Common generation mistakes

• Information overload Don’t include every detail. Focus on what matters for decisions.

• Missing context Always explain why something matters, not just what it is.

• Wrong audience focus Technical legal analysis for executives, or oversimplified summaries for legal team.

• No clear ask Every document should make clear what you need from the reader.

AI prompting for documents

Specify format upfront

"Create an executive summary table with columns: Issue | Risk | Impact | Recommendation"

Define length constraints

"One-page memo suitable for board review"
"Three-bullet email responding to their concerns"

Include tone guidance

"Professional but firm tone for opposing counsel"
"Collaborative problem-solving approach for partner"

The key insight

Good document generation isn’t about creating more paper – it’s about driving decisions and actions. Every document should answer three questions: What’s the situation? Why does it matter? What should we do?

The best generated documents make complex legal issues accessible to their intended audience without losing critical nuance.

Remember

Your analysis is only valuable if others can understand and act on it. Invest time in clear, structured output that speaks to your audience’s needs and drives the deal forward. A well-crafted summary or email can be more valuable than hours of detailed review if it helps reach the right decision quickly.