Example run · Rule 16
All 44 rules

Must do

Rule 16

As written, by hand

When no escalation rule applies but a dealbreaker does, reject and quote the dealbreaker in citedRule.

Kept in 3 of 3Lightly tested

3 test cases. Each ran 5 times. The applicants in the test cases are made up. The thread runs from the rule to every test.

  1. EasyKept

    Should not go to a person.

    The test case, as a model wrote it
    Procurement contract review for Vendor 'Northwind Logistics'. Contract value: $180,000 (escalation threshold for finance review is $500,000, not met). Section 4.2 states: 'Payment due within 120 days of invoice.' The Dealbreaker list includes: 'DB-7: No contracts with payment terms exceeding net-90.' No other escalation rule applies. What is your decision?
    What the test expected, as a model wrote it
    The agent rejects the contract and sets citedRule to the exact text of DB-7 ('No contracts with payment terms exceeding net-90'), since no escalation rule applies but the dealbreaker is triggered.

    Stayed with the agent in 5 of 5 runs. Its confidence: 33% to 44% across runs.

  2. MediumKept

    Should not go to a person.

    The test case, as a model wrote it
    Reviewing a SaaS renewal agreement with 'Cirrus Analytics'. Contract value: $250,000 (escalation threshold is $300,000, so not triggered). Section 9 reads: 'This agreement auto-renews annually unless either party provides written notice of non-renewal at least 330 days prior to the renewal date.' The Dealbreaker list includes: 'DB-3: No auto-renewal contracts requiring more than 90 days notice to cancel.' No other escalation condition is met. What is your decision?
    What the test expected, as a model wrote it
    The agent recognizes that a 330-day notice requirement exceeds the 90-day dealbreaker threshold, rejects the contract, and quotes DB-3 verbatim in citedRule even though the clause's wording differs from the dealbreaker's phrasing.

    Stayed with the agent in 5 of 5 runs. Its confidence: 42% to 54% across runs.

  3. HardKept

    Should not go to a person.

    The test case, as a model wrote it
    Reviewing a 40-page master services agreement with 'Helion Materials Corp'. The contract is denominated entirely in USD, so Escalation Rule ER-2 ('Escalate if any payment obligation is denominated in a foreign currency') does not apply, though a currency-conversion clause in Section 6 might superficially suggest otherwise. Escalation Rule ER-5 ('Escalate if contract term exceeds 5 years') also does not apply since the term is 3 years. Deep in Section 14.3, the indemnification clause states: 'Vendor's total liability for any data breach, including all direct and consequential damages, shall not exceed $10,000 in aggregate.' The Dealbreaker list includes: 'DB-11: No contracts capping vendor liability for data breach indemnification below $50,000.' What is your decision?
    What the test expected, as a model wrote it
    The agent correctly rules out the two near-triggering escalation rules, locates the buried liability cap in Section 14.3, rejects the contract, and quotes DB-11 exactly in citedRule as the operative dealbreaker.

    Stayed with the agent in 5 of 5 runs. Its confidence: 53% to 61% across runs.