Feature
Benchmark & risk against your boilerplate
In plain English
Pin your standard agreement as a baseline and version90 flags exactly where a counterparty's draft deviates from it — changed numbers, weakened clauses, missing protections, and known risk patterns — each finding cited to the clause and classified by severity.
"Looks standard" is not a review
The most dangerous sentence in contracting is "it's basically our usual agreement." Basically. The differences between basically and actually are where the money lives — and finding them by eye means reading two 28-page documents in parallel, which nobody does twice.
Your standard becomes the yardstick
Upload your boilerplate once; it becomes a pinned baseline. From then on, every review of that contract answers a precise question: where does this draft differ from what we consider normal? Deviations come back typed — changed value, missing clause, nonstandard term, policy conflict — so a 40-page draft turns into a 12-item worklist sorted by how much each item should worry you.
Risk patterns, even without a baseline
Some clauses are flagged on sight, no comparison needed: unlimited liability, sole discretion standards, evergreen renewals with punitive notice windows. The classics — the ones that show up in every "how we lost $200k" postmortem.
From finding to fix in one click
Findings carry suggested language — often your own baseline clause. Applying it inserts the fix as a tracked change, attributed to you, ready for the counterparty to see. Detection to redline without leaving the page.
Key terms
Master Services Agreement
- Counterparty
- Meridian Robotics, Inc.
- Effective date
- 2026-08-01
- Initial term
- 24 months, auto-renew
- Payment terms
- Net 60 (was Net 30)
- Governing law
- Delaware
- Liability cap
- None found ⚠
Liability is uncapped NONSTANDARD
“…each party shall be liable for all damages arising out of or relating to this Agreement.” — §9.2
No aggregate cap and no consequential-damages exclusion. Your standard caps at 12 months of fees.
Insert standard cap ✨ Explain implications
Payment terms moved to Net 60 DEVIATION
Your pinned standard says Net 30. The draft was quietly changed in the last round — §4.1.
every finding cites the clause it came from · verified against the document, never invented
Frequently asked questions
How does version90 benchmark a contract against my standard terms?
You pin a baseline — your standard MSA, NDA, or preferred playbook terms — to a contract. Every AI review then compares the draft clause-by-clause against that baseline and reports deviations: changed values, weakened clauses, missing protections, and additions, each cited to the exact language.
What kinds of deviations does version90 detect?
Changed values (Net 30 → Net 60, cap amounts, notice periods), missing clauses your standard includes, nonstandard risk patterns (unlimited liability, unilateral discretion, evergreen auto-renewal), and conflicts with internal policies you've uploaded as knowledge documents.
Where do baselines come from?
From your documents: drop your standard agreement into the library and it becomes a baseline; version90 also extracts its clauses so they're individually reusable. No form-filling, no clause-by-clause data entry.
Can version90 check drafts against internal policies?
Yes — upload playbooks or policies as knowledge documents and reviews will flag conflicts with them (for example, a data-retention term your security policy forbids), with citations to both documents.
In witness whereof
Retire the _FINAL_v7 filename.
One plan, $100/month, every feature. Your first contract can be under review in about ninety seconds.