id string | question string | answer string | answer_detail string | task_type string | documents list | pdf list | match_correct list | match_stale list | match_fused list | pdf_scanned list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
rq-s1t3g01a-p106 | Does the agreement cap Provider’s aggregate liability at the total payments received during the preceding 12 months? | No. | The entire liability limitation provision was deleted, so this cap does not survive. | struck_clause | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p106-r6 | Which liability provisions were added, and did Provider’s prior liability package survive? | Added: Exceptions to Indirect-Damages Exclusion, Equitable Relief, and Allocation of Risk. Removed: the prior aggregate-liability cap, five-times cap, and broad damages exclusion. | The three identified provisions were inserted, while the former liability package—including the general cap, special five-times cap, damages exclusion, and its allocation-of-risk statement—was deleted. | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Exceptions to Indirect-Damages Exclusion",
"Equitable Relief",
"Allocation of Risk",
"prior aggregate-liability cap",
"five-times cap",
"broad damages exclusion"
] | [
"remains operative"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p106-r7 | Does the earlier draft’s proposed liability limitation—including the 12-month payment cap, the 5x cap for data protection and confidentiality claims, and the consequential-damages exclusion—remain in force under this draft? | No. | The proposed liability limitation was removed in this draft. | proposal_between_rounds | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract",
"s1-t2-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf",
"documents/s1-t2-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf",
"documents_scanned/s1-t2-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p143 | Does Section 9 require LargeCo to promptly notify Provider in writing of a claim for which indemnification is sought? | No. | The provision imposing the notice requirement was deleted, so that obligation does not survive. | struck_clause | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p143-r6 | In the revised indemnification provisions, which obligations were added, and which prior indemnification procedure was removed? | Added: Section 16.2 IP-Infringement Carve-Outs and Section 16.3 Procedure; removed: the former Section 9 notice, cooperation, and mutual-consent settlement procedure. | The revisions add the IP-infringement carve-outs, including exclusions for material not developed by Provider or modified by others, and a new indemnification procedure. The prior Section 9 procedure is deleted and is not independently operative. | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Section 16.2",
"Section 16.3",
"removed"
] | [
"remains operative"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p163 | What monthly availability percentage must Provider achieve under the Uptime Commitment? | 99.9% | Provider must make all Services available 99.9% of the time each calendar month. | numeral_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"99.9%"
] | [
"99.599%"
] | [
"99.5999%"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p164 | How many business days’ advance written notice must Provider give LargeCo for Scheduled Maintenance? | Five (5) business days. | Provider must provide written notice at least five business days in advance. | numeral_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"five (5)"
] | [
"ten (10)"
] | [
"510"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p165 | Whose business hours determine when Remote Support must be available? | Provider’s business hours. | Provider’s. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Provider"
] | [
"LargeCo"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p210 | What is the maximum permitted Recovery Point Objective? | Sixty (60) minutes. | The operative provision caps the Recovery Point Objective at sixty minutes. | numeral_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"60 minutes"
] | [
"15 minutes"
] | [
"6015"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p210-r9 | Does the reference to Section 8 still point to Transfers to Sub-Processors, and if not, what section now carries that heading? | No; Section 7. | Transfers to Sub-Processors was renumbered from Section 8 to Section 7, but the cross-reference was not updated. | stale_cross_reference | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Section 7"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p211 | May LargeCo immediately terminate the Agreement for any failure by Provider to meet a requirement of Exhibit A? | No. | Termination is available only for the specified Uptime or Recovery Commitment failures and requires thirty (30) days’ written notice. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p235 | How long after the business relationship ends must the Provider maintain the required insurance? | Two (2) years. | Two (2) years after the business relationship ends. | numeral_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"two (2) years"
] | [
"one (1) year"
] | [
"21 years"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p241 | What is the minimum required Professional Liability insurance limit per occurrence or claim? | $3,000,000 | $3,000,000 per occurrence or claim. | numeral_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"$3,000,000"
] | [
"$25,000,000"
] | [
"$325,000,000"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p25 | Does the definition of “Usage Data” exclude AI Inputs? | Yes. | The operative definition expressly excludes AI Inputs from Usage Data. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [
"No"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p255 | On which policies must LargeCo Corporation, its parents, and covered subsidiaries be named as Additional Insureds? | Cyber Liability and Technology E&O policies only. | The Additional Insured requirement applies only to the Cyber Liability and Technology E&O policies, not Workers’ Compensation. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Cyber Liability and Technology E&O policies only"
] | [
"All policies except Workers’ Compensation"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p255-r6 | Which limitations were added to the insurance obligations, and was the former broader additional-insured endorsement requirement covering LargeCocorp Holdings LLC, affiliated companies, officers, directors, and employees retained? | The negligence/willful-misconduct limitation, indemnity-obligations limitation, and Cyber/E&O-only limitation were added; the former broader endorsement requirement was removed. | Coverage is limited to Provider’s negligence or willful misconduct and indemnity obligations, and additional-insured status applies only to Cyber Liability and Technology E&O policies. The prior broader endorsement requirement was removed. | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Cyber/E&O-only limitation",
"broader endorsement requirement was removed"
] | [
"broader endorsement requirement was retained"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p26 | Does the definition of “User Information” cover User data solely because it is generated, collected, stored, processed, or used in connection with Provider’s delivery of the Deliverables? | No. | The reference to delivery of the Deliverables was removed from the definition. | struck_definition_term | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p270 | Is the data-processing instrument an agreement or an addendum? | Addendum. | It is the Data Processing and Security Addendum. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Addendum"
] | [
"Agreement"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p275 | Does Section 1.2 require both AgentCo and Customer to comply with their respective obligations under Data Protection Laws in connection with the Service? | No. | That mutual compliance obligation was deleted and is not operative. | numeral_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p275-r6 | In the revised DPA, which provisions were added, and what prior obligation was removed, among the Customer Data, Data Controller, and Data Processor definitions; the Schedule 2 security-measures provision; and the parties’ mutual obligation to comply with Data Protection Laws? | The three definitions and the Schedule 2 provision were added; the mutual Data Protection Laws compliance obligation was removed. | The revised DPA adds definitions of Customer Data, Data Controller, and Data Processor, and adds the Schedule 2 security-measures provision. It removes the covenant requiring both parties to comply with their respective obligations under Data Protection Laws in connection with the Service. | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"compliance obligation was removed"
] | [
"compliance obligation remains operative"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p28 | Under the Services clause, must Provider comply with Data Processing Requirements or with a Data Processing Agreement? | Data Processing Requirements. | The operative clause requires compliance with Privacy, Data Security, and Data Processing Requirements. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Data Processing Requirements"
] | [
"Data Processing Agreement"
] | [
"AgreementPrivacy"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p28-r6 | Which contractual items are newly operative—the Provider designation, LargeCo affiliate and Authorized User access, limits on Provider suspensions, and the separate Privacy, Data Security, and Data Processing Requirements—and what happened to the former “Privacy and Data Security Requirements Data Processing Agreement”... | All four are new; the former obligation was removed. | The new contract identifies Provider, permits access and use by LargeCo’s Affiliates and Authorized Users, limits suspensions to affected users or services, and requires compliance with separate Privacy, Data Security, and Data Processing Requirements. The former combined “Privacy and Data Security Requirements Data Pr... | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"former obligation was removed"
] | [
"former obligation remains operative"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p314 | Must AgentCo implement the security measures in Schedule 2 in addition to other commercially reasonable measures? | Yes. | Yes—AgentCo must implement the Schedule 2 measures and other commercially reasonable measures. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [
"No"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p318 | What is AgentCo’s outside deadline for notifying Customer of a Personal Data Breach after becoming aware of it? | 72 hours. | AgentCo must notify Customer without undue delay and, in all events, within 72 hours after becoming aware of the breach. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"72 hours"
] | [
"No fixed deadline"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p320 | Must AgentCo bear the expense of an audit triggered by a confirmed Personal Data Breach? | Yes. | A confirmed Personal Data Breach triggers an audit at AgentCo's expense. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [
"No"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p322 | If the parties cannot resolve Customer’s objection to a new Sub-Processor, may AgentCo terminate the Agreement on that basis? | No. | Only Customer may terminate on that basis. | numeral_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p322-r6 | Which data-processing provisions were newly added, and what prior provision was removed? | New: §§3.8–3.10 and 4.1; removed: the prior sub-processor clause. | The new provisions are §§3.8, 3.9, 3.10, and 4.1. The prior version of the sub-processor clause was removed and replaced by the revised §3.8. | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"prior sub-processor clause"
] | [
"removed: none"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p34 | Are all AI Inputs and AI Outputs expressly classified as LargeCo’s Intellectual Property as well as its Confidential Information? | No. | They are expressly classified as LargeCo’s Confidential Information, but the additional Intellectual Property classification was removed. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p348 | What does item 4 address: the categories of data subjects or the nature and purpose of the Service? | Categories of data subjects. | Categories of data subjects, including Customer's employees, candidates and applicants, contractors, suppliers, and Authorized Users. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Categories of data subjects"
] | [
"Nature and purpose"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p348-r7 | Does the current contract retain the earlier draft’s statement that the nature and purpose of processing is performance of the Service under the Agreement? | No. | The proposed statement was removed in the current draft. | proposal_between_rounds | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract",
"s1-t2-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf",
"documents/s1-t2-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf",
"documents_scanned/s1-t2-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p355 | Does the contract identify Customer's employees, customers, suppliers, and Authorized Users as categories of data subjects? | No. | The provision identifying those groups as categories of data subjects was deleted in full. | struck_clause | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p357 | Does the agreement contemplate that Customer Data may include sensitive personal data routinely disclosed in recruiting contexts? | Yes. | The operative provision expressly permits Customer Data to include sensitive personal data routinely disclosed in recruiting contexts. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [
"No"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p361 | Which DPA section describes transfers to Sub-Processors? | Section 3. | The operative replacement provision states that transfers to Sub-Processors are described in Section 3. | numeral_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Section 3"
] | [
"Section 8"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p361-r6 | In the revised DPA, which subprocessor provisions are new, and does the prior obligation to process Customer Data for the duration of the Agreement survive? | New: Frequency, Transfers to Sub-Processors, and UK SCCs information; the duration-of-Agreement processing obligation was removed. | The revision adds the continuous-frequency provision, the Section 3 transfers provision, and the UK SCCs information, while removing the prior duration-of-Agreement processing obligation. | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"duration-of-Agreement processing obligation was removed"
] | [
"All four provisions remain operative"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p37 | How many days’ written notice must Provider give LargeCo before any planned material change in its use of AI Technology? | 15 days. | Provider must provide at least 15 days’ written notice and an opportunity to object. | numeral_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"15 days"
] | [
"30 days"
] | [
"1530 days"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p38 | Must Provider give LargeCo any AI Technology or training-data information it needs to meet any transparency or other obligation, without a written-request requirement or annual frequency limit? | No. | Only reasonable summary information is required, on reasonable written request and no more than once per calendar year. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p40 | May Provider use Usage Data to develop or improve the Service? | No. | The operative authorization is limited to supporting, securing, and operating the Service and producing internal aggregated performance analytics; the authorization to develop or improve the Service was removed. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s1t3g01a-p42 | Does Exhibit C’s conflict rule cover Data Processing Requirements? | Yes. | Yes. The operative provision covers the Privacy, Data Security and Data Processing Requirements in Exhibit C. | word_internal_strike | [
"s1-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [
"No"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s1-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p100 | Does Customer grant AgentCo a worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free right to use and disclose Feedback? | No. | The operative clause states that AgentCo retains all intellectual property rights in Feedback; the customer grant was removed. | word_internal_strike | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p14 | Does Section 2.8 define “Deliverables” to include work product or information generated by the Services or AgencyCo? | No. | Section 2.8 is reserved, so the deleted definition is not operative. | struck_definition_term | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p14-r6 | Was the last-signature effective-date language added, and was the definition of “Deliverables” retained or removed? | The effective-date language was added; the Deliverables definition was removed. | Section 2.8 is now reserved rather than defining “Deliverables.” | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Deliverables definition was removed"
] | [
"Deliverables definition remains in force"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p15 | For the availability requirement in the definition of “Documentation,” does “customer” mean AgentCo’s customers generally or only the defined Customer? | AgentCo’s customers generally. | The operative definition uses lowercase “customer” and requires the materials to be generally available, rather than merely made available to the defined Customer. | word_internal_strike | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"customers generally"
] | [
"defined Customer"
] | [
"cCustomer"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p175 | Must AgencyCo segregate all Customer Confidential Information from all AgencyCo and third-party data? | No. | AgencyCo must physically segregate a name or username from other user data, but the broader requirement to segregate all Customer Confidential Information from all AgencyCo and third-party data was removed. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p175-r6 | Following the data-security revision, which requirements are newly imposed, and which prior requirements no longer bind AgencyCo? | New: the Data Security provisions requiring risk-appropriate safeguards, 256-bit encryption, and segregation of names/usernames. Removed: the former Information Security Program, access-tracking, unique-credential, data-segregation, and immediate access-revocation requirements. | The inserted provisions replace the deleted detailed security obligations; the deleted obligations are not operative. | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Removed",
"256-bit encryption",
"immediate access-revocation"
] | [
"remain operative"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p176 | Must AgencyCo make its Information Security Program available for review by Customer? | No. | The requirement that the program be available for Customer review was deleted. | word_internal_strike | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p181 | Within what period must AgencyCo respond to a detected Security Flaw? | Within 24 hours. | AgencyCo must respond within 24 hours of discovery. | numeral_strike | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Within 24 hours"
] | [
"Within 8 hours"
] | [
"Within 824 hours"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p187 | Within how many hours must AgencyCo use reasonable efforts to notify Customer of a Data Security Breach? | Within 24 hours. | The operative notification period is 24 hours; the deleted 8-hour period does not apply. | numeral_strike | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Within 24 hours"
] | [
"Within 8 hours"
] | [
"Within 824 hours"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p190-r6 | Following the revisions, which data-security provisions were added, and which investigation obligation was removed? | Added: Data Security Breach Notification and Incident Response; Indemnification; Notice to Other Parties; and Credit Monitoring. Removed: Data Security Breach Investigation, including the five-day cooperation obligation. | The new provisions address breach notification and incident response, indemnification, notice to other parties, and credit monitoring. The prior Data Security Breach Investigation clause—including AgencyCo’s five-day investigation, access, notification, and cooperation duties—was deleted. | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Removed: Data Security Breach Investigation",
"five-day cooperation obligation"
] | [
"none was removed"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p195-r6 | Which security-related provisions were added, and was the Background Checks provision retained or removed? | Added: Security Manager and Tracking Technologies/No Respawning. Background Checks was removed. | The new provisions concern designation of a Security Manager and restrictions on Tracking Technologies and respawning; the Background Checks provision is no longer operative. | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Background Checks was removed"
] | [
"Background Checks remains operative"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p21 | What section defines “Service”? | Section 2.15. | The operative section number is 2.15; the former 2.14 numbering is deleted. | numeral_strike | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"2.15"
] | [
"2.14"
] | [
"2.145"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p25 | Under Section 3.1, is Customer’s right to access and use the Service non-transferable, or is it worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, and fully paid-up? | Non-transferable. | The granted right is non-transferable; the worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, and fully paid-up language was deleted. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"non-transferable"
] | [
"worldwide",
"irrevocable",
"royalty-free",
"fully paid-up"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p32 | Does the contract require AgencyCo to assign to Customer any rights it has or acquires in the Deliverables? | No. | The provision requiring AgencyCo to assign its rights in the Deliverables was deleted in full. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p349 | Does the contract define “Available” or “Availability” to mean that all Services are fully available for access and use by Customer? | No. | The entire definition was deleted, so it is not operative. | struck_definition_term | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p350 | Does the contract define “Recovery Event” to include problems, disasters, failures, comparable events risking Data loss, or un-Availability? | No. | The entire definition of “Recovery Event” was deleted. | struck_definition_term | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p354 | Is AgencyCo still obligated to satisfy the monthly Service Commitments, including 99.99% uptime and the specified support and recovery commitments? | No. | The entire Service Commitments clause was deleted without replacement. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p355 | Is AgencyCo still required to give Customer at least ten business days’ written notice before Scheduled Maintenance? | No. | The entire Scheduled Maintenance clause imposing that notice obligation was deleted. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p356 | Is AgencyCo obligated to provide the remote and on-site Support described in the deleted Support clause? | No. | The entire Support clause was deleted, so those obligations do not survive. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p381 | Does Customer remain entitled to a Service Credit if AgencyCo fails to achieve a Service Commitment in a calendar month? | No. | The entire Service Credits provision was deleted, so the stated entitlement does not survive. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p382 | Must AgencyCo automatically credit Customer with Service Credits whenever monthly Availability falls below the Uptime Commitment? | No. | The automatic Service Credit obligation was deleted and does not survive. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p397 | Is AgencyCo required to provide Customer a monthly report detailing its performance under the Service Commitments and any Service Credits owed for the prior month? | No. | The monthly reporting obligation was deleted and does not survive. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p398 | Is AgencyCo required throughout the Agreement to provide Customer with a 24/7 Customer Portal for submitting and tracking Support requests? | No. | The Customer Portal obligation was deleted in full. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p399 | Is AgencyCo required to develop, provide, and deploy Updates to correct vulnerabilities or Service failures? | No. | The Updates obligation was deleted in full and does not survive. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p400 | Does Section 8 require AgencyCo to maintain disaster recovery, backup, and business continuity capabilities? | No. | The Recovery Events clause imposing those obligations was deleted in full. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p43 | Absent a violation of the Agreement, may AgentCo suspend or terminate an Authorized User’s access for jeopardizing the Service’s security if the jeopardy is not material? | No. | Security-related conduct must materially jeopardize the Service before AgentCo may suspend or terminate access on that basis. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p432 | Must the contractor maintain Contractors Pollution Liability insurance under the contract? | No. | Contractors Pollution Liability is not applicable. | word_internal_strike | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p434 | What per-occurrence limit must the Commercial Crime/Employee Dishonesty insurance provide? | $2,000,000 | $2,000,000 per occurrence. | numeral_strike | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"$2,000,000"
] | [
"$5,000,000"
] | [
"$52,000,000"
] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p437 | Does the contract require an endorsement naming Customer Corporation, Customercorp Holdings LLC, and their related entities and personnel as Additional Insureds? | No. | The entire Additional Insured endorsement requirement was deleted and is not operative. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p438 | Must the required insurance contain a waiver-of-subrogation endorsement in favor of Customer Corporation, Customercorp Holdings LLC, and their related entities and personnel? | No. | The waiver-of-subrogation endorsement requirement was deleted and is no longer operative. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t3g01a-p439 | Must the required insurance contain an endorsement stating that coverage is primary, noncontributory, and not excess over insurance carried by Customer and its affiliates? | No. | The endorsement requirement was deleted, so it is not an operative obligation. | struck_clause | [
"s2-t3-g01a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t3-g01a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p124 | Are courier or overnight express charges disallowed unless those services are required by the Client? | No. | The provision imposing that restriction was deleted, so it does not survive. | struck_clause | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p131 | Does the contract still require the Consultant to bill all Reimbursable Expenses at actual cost without any markup? | No. | The entire no-markup obligation was deleted, so it does not survive. | struck_clause | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p147 | Does Client have the right under this provision to audit or inspect Consultant’s records? | No. | The audit and inspection clause was deleted and replaced with “Reserved,” so no such right survives under this provision. | word_internal_strike | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p157-r6 | Under the revised risk-allocation provisions, which insurance requirements were added, and which waiver obligations were removed? | Added: CGL, Technology Errors & Omissions, and Cyber & Privacy Liability coverage. Removed: the Consultant’s waiver of Claims, duty to obtain written waivers of liability, and duty to obtain insurer waivers of subrogation. | The new provisions require CGL coverage of $1,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate, Technology E&O/Professional Liability coverage of $3,000,000, and Cyber & Privacy Liability coverage of $3,000,000. The deleted provisions waived Claims against the Client and required written liability waivers and insurer subrog... | mixed_edits_on_page | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"CGL",
"Technology Errors & Omissions",
"Cyber & Privacy Liability",
"waiver of Claims",
"written waivers of liability",
"waivers of subrogation"
] | [
"None were removed"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p165 | Under this provision, is Consultant’s indemnification obligation unaffected by limitations on damages or the other listed matters? | No. | The provision making the indemnification obligation unlimited was removed. | word_internal_strike | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p209 | Does either party retain the contractual option to submit a dispute to formal non-binding mediation? | No. | The mediation provision was intentionally removed. | word_internal_strike | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p21 | Does the contract still define “Life Safety Issue”? | No. | The entire definition of “Life Safety Issue” was deleted, so it is no longer operative. | struck_clause | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p30 | Does Section 2.2 impose procedures for assignment by Client to Consultant? | No. | Section 2.2 is reserved. | numeral_strike | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p43 | Which party must accept the Change proposal for Consultant to be entitled to a mutually agreed fee increase? | Consultant. | Consultant must accept Client’s proposal, with the fee increase mutually agreed upon by the Parties. | word_internal_strike | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Consultant"
] | [
"Client"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p52 | Must Consultant follow Client’s recommended project guidelines unless the parties agree otherwise in writing? | No. | The guidelines clause was removed and replaced with “Reserved,” so it imposes no obligation on Consultant. | word_internal_strike | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p63 | Does the contract provide that Client’s review of Consultant documents is solely informational and cannot constitute acceptance or create liability for Client? | No. | The Client Review provision was removed and replaced with “Reserved.” | word_internal_strike | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t3g02a-p66 | Does the contract require Consultant to coordinate its design documents with documents provided by Co-Consultants? | No. | The coordination clause was deleted and replaced with “Reserved,” so the coordination obligation does not survive. | word_internal_strike | [
"s3-t3-g02a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t3-g02a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g12a-p129 | Does Consultant’s indemnity cover negligence and failure to comply with the Agreement, or only third-party damages arising from intellectual-property infringement? | Only third-party damages arising from intellectual-property infringement. | The negligence and contractual-noncompliance grounds were deleted. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g12a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"only third-party damages"
] | [
"negligence",
"contractual noncompliance"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g12a-p139 | Whose personnel may independently develop information without access to or reference to the furnished Confidential Information for it to fall outside the definition of Confidential Information? | Personnel of either Party. | The operative wording excludes qualifying information independently developed by personnel of a Party, not merely Consultant. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g12a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"either Party"
] | [
"Consultant’s personnel only"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g12a-p18 | Does the definition of Intellectual Property Rights expressly include rights in domain names? | No. | The provision expressly covering rights in domain names was deleted and is not operative. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g12a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g12a-p26 | Does the Agreement limit Consultant’s Services to Client’s use in connection with one or more Projects? | No. | The operative provision states only that Consultant performs Services for Client; the Project-specific limitation was deleted. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g12a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g12a-p6 | Whose written approval is required for ATS integrations and the other listed Additional Services? | Supplier. | The listed Additional Services require separate written approval by Supplier after a security review and scoping of an order form. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g12a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Supplier"
] | [
"Client"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g12a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g14a-p160 | Does the indemnity independently cover Consultant’s failure to comply with any requirement set forth in the Agreement? | No. | The failure-to-comply indemnity basis was deleted; the operative provision covers third-party damages arising from the specified infringement claims. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g14a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g14a-p228 | Does Section 15.12’s limitation of liability cease to apply to third-party claims for personal injury or property damage arising from a party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct? | No. | The operative exception instead covers third-party claims for breaches of indemnification, confidentiality, information security, or DPA obligations. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g14a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g14a-p3 | What type of master agreement did the parties enter into? | Master SaaS Subscription Agreement. | The operative agreement is for a SaaS subscription, not professional services. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g14a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"SaaS Subscription"
] | [
"Professional Services"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g14a-p34 | Do Additional Services require the parties’ mutual execution of an additional Notice of Award? | Yes. | Any Additional Services require mutual execution of an additional Notice of Award. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g14a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [
"No"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g14a-p41 | May Client designate in the Notice of Award a commencement time other than the Notice’s issuance? | No. | Basic Services commence upon issuance of the Notice of Award. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g14a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g14a-p48 | Is the Consultant’s standard of care still specifically determined by the Notice of Award and projects of similar size, location, scope, and complexity? | No. | The Notice of Award and similar-project benchmark was removed. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g14a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g14a-p53 | Is Consultant required to perform in accordance with Client’s recommended guidelines unless the parties agree in writing to alter, omit, or disregard them? | No. | Consultant must instead raise concerns or objections before the Project begins, and Client must use reasonable commercial efforts to resolve them. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g14a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s3t4g14a-p85 | Is Consultant’s indemnity obligation for proceedings arising from its performance subject to the limitation of liability? | No. | The language making the indemnity subject to the limitation of liability was deleted. | old_and_new_adjacent | [
"s3-t4-g14a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s3-t4-g14a-contract.pdf"
] |
rq-s2t4g04a-p258 | Under the table, is a complete system outage or major application failure that prevents critical business processes, impacts data integrity, and has no workaround classified as a critical issue? | No. | The entire cell containing that classification was deleted without replacement. | struck_table_cell | [
"s2-t4-g04a-contract"
] | [
"documents/s2-t4-g04a-contract.pdf"
] | [
"No"
] | [
"Yes"
] | [] | [
"documents_scanned/s2-t4-g04a-contract.pdf"
] |
OB LegalQA
95 questions on 7 redlined contract PDFs. They evaluate document parsers, not models: can a parser give a downstream agent what it needs to answer a question about a heavily negotiated contract?
Columns
| column | meaning |
|---|---|
id |
stable item id |
question |
the question put to the agent |
answer |
gold answer, from the position the parties agreed |
answer_detail |
why that is the answer |
task_type |
which redline pattern the question turns on |
documents |
contract id(s) the question is about |
pdf |
path(s) to the digital PDF in this repo |
pdf_scanned |
path(s) to the same contract as page images, no text layer |
match_correct |
strings that indicate the agent answered correctly |
match_stale |
strings that indicate it answered from struck text |
match_fused |
strings that indicate it merged struck and surviving text |
views/ carries each contract as markdown, once with the deletions kept as
~~struck~~ and once with every edit unmarked.
Provenance
Contracts come from crosbylegal/RedlineBench (CC-BY-4.0), converted to PDF. Derived from RedlineBench by Crosby Legal, adapted. Licensed CC-BY-4.0.
Benchmark design: openbenchmarks.com/doc-processing.
- Downloads last month
- 217