Is there a reporting dashboard?

No. You get a searchable register with extracted terms, filterable and exportable to CSV — the raw material to measure cycle time yourself, not a chart that measures it for you. If reporting is what you are judged on, know that going in.

How do we stop people bypassing it?

By not asking them to go anywhere. Submission happens in Slack or Teams, or by forwarding an email from any inbox, so the path of least resistance is the one you want them on.

For legal operations

Q: Is this a contract lifecycle management system?

No. There is no clause library, no obligation management and no procurement workflow. It is contract review, a register and a record of decisions — a component of a lifecycle programme rather than a replacement for one.

Nobody is asking you whether the liability cap is acceptable. They are asking why intake takes nine days, where it stalls, and why half of it still arrives as a direct message.

The process is the problem

You have probably already rolled out a tool for this. It had a portal, it had a form, and within a month people were back to messaging the lawyer directly — because the portal was one more place to go and the message was already open.

That is the pattern worth naming: contract intake does not fail on features, it fails on adoption. Every workaround is somebody choosing the path of least resistance, and a process that depends on people choosing the harder path is a process that quietly stops being followed.

What changes

One queue, several front doors. A slash command in Slack, a file dropped into a Teams chat, or an email forwarded from any inbox — including by somebody who has no access to your workspace at all. All three land in the same queue, with the same policy check and the same audit trail.
There is nothing to adopt. It runs inside Slack or Microsoft Teams, so there is no portal to drive people to and no training programme to justify. The failure mode you have already lived through is designed out rather than trained around.
Review stops depending on who picked it up. Standards are configured once — governing law, term, liability, payment terms — and every submission is measured against the same ones. Upload a written negotiation playbook and it becomes the policy rather than a document nobody opens.
The chase disappears. Whoever submitted a contract can see its status themselves: submitted, in review, claimed by whom, decided. That alone removes most of the traffic your team currently absorbs.
The record is a by-product. Who decided, when, on which version, and what changed between rounds — captured because it happened, not because somebody remembered to log it.

What you will not get, and it matters for you specifically

There is no analytics dashboard. You get a searchable register of every contract with its terms extracted, filterable by status, type, counterparty and date, and exportable to CSV. That is the raw material to measure cycle time — it is not a chart that measures it for you. If reporting is the thing you are being judged on, know that going in.

This is not a CLM. No clause library, no obligation management, no procurement workflow. It is contract review, a register, and a record of decisions. If your remit covers the full lifecycle, this is a component of that, not a replacement for it.

Both of those are deliberate rather than roadmap gaps we are hiding. It is better for you to find out here than in a demo.

A human decides everything

There is no auto-approval, on purpose. AI does the reading, the extraction, the comparison against your standards, and the first draft of the markup. It does not approve contracts. The speed comes from a reviewer arriving well-briefed, not from nobody looking — which also means the audit trail says a person decided, because one did.

See document review, the contract register, the in-house counsel view, or how your documents are handled.