We build the first pass, not the judgement

Why the company exists

Our co-founder Elin Sundqvist spent six years in-house at a logistics group where inbound supplier paper arrived at a rate of roughly forty agreements a week. The team was competent and the playbook was well written. It still took two working days for a routine renewal to clear, because every document had to be read from the first page by someone who was already behind.

What was slow was not the thinking. It was the reading. The judgement calls that genuinely required a lawyer occupied perhaps eight minutes of a two-hour review. The rest was locating clauses, checking them against a standard that lived in a slide deck, and typing wording that had been typed a hundred times before.

Clauzy exists to remove that reading, and only that reading. We are deliberately uninterested in building software that decides whether to sign. We are extremely interested in making sure that by the time a person opens a contract, the clauses are numbered, the deviations are marked, the proposed wording is drafted, and the rationale is attached.

How we think about the technology

Language models are excellent at reading structured argument and poor at being accountable for it. So the architecture separates the two. The model reads and proposes; a deterministic rules layer, owned by your legal team, decides what counts as a deviation and how severe it is. That is why every finding in Clauzy carries a rule citation. If a suggestion is wrong, you can see which rule produced it and change that rule, rather than arguing with a black box.

It also means the system fails in a legible way. When Clauzy cannot determine something, such as an unusual governing law or a defined term that appears nowhere in the document, it says so and marks the clause for human attention. A tool that quietly guesses is worse than no tool at all in this category, because nobody knows which parts to double-check.

How we handle your documents

Contracts are among the most sensitive documents an organisation holds. They contain pricing, headcount commitments, unreleased product plans and the terms of relationships that have not been announced. We treat them accordingly: EU-hosted processing, a zero-retention agreement with our model providers, no use of customer documents as training data, and hard deletion on a schedule you control.

We publish our sub-processor list, we send thirty days of notice before it changes, and we will sign a data processing agreement with amendments negotiated by your counsel. None of that is a differentiator. It is the minimum entry requirement for asking a legal team to upload their work.