Governing terms get missed
Commercial questions fail when the controlling obligation lives in an exhibit the model never opened.
Legal
Contract and diligence review with cited findings.
Agreements and exhibits stay as source files. Raycaster maps findings to the controlling language—then counsel verifies and decides.
Authentic Workspace captureLegal matter packet
Why this exists
The risk is in the controlling language—not the chat summary.
Matter work spans agreements, exhibits, and side letters. A useful system keeps the finding attached to the clause that actually governs the answer.
Nearby clauses look right
Agents cite adjacent language that sounds relevant but does not control the obligation.
Diligence gaps span exhibits
Approval, assignment, and change-of-control risk break when findings are not reconciled across related files.
Use cases
Legal work that ends in a disposition.
Start with the matter packet you already have. Raycaster surfaces cited findings; counsel keeps the decision.
Contracts
Contract review
Clause risk, obligations, and commercial terms graded against the controlling agreement language.
Packages
- Master agreements and amendments
- Schedules and exhibits
- Side letters
- Assignment and change-of-control terms
- Termination and notice provisions
- Indemnity and liability caps
What changes
- Findings cite the controlling clause, not a paraphrase.
- Open items stay attached to the source file.
- Counsel accepts, revises, or rejects with the passage visible.
M&A
M&A diligence
Transaction documents and approval risk across related exhibits with inspectable findings.
Packages
- Purchase agreements
- Disclosure schedules
- Ancillary agreements
- Consent and approval packages
- Change-of-control provisions
- Related party exhibits
What changes
- Cross-exhibit gaps surface before the memo is written.
- Risk items stay linked to the packet files.
- Reviewers dispose findings without reconstructing the search.
Review loop
Source → controlling clause → disposition.
This diagram explains the causality. The product proof above is a real Workspace capture; the steps below show the review sequence.
Workflow diagram · not a product screenshot
01 · Sources
- Master agreement
- Exhibit B
- Side letter
02 · Controlling passage
Assignment requires prior written consent of the non-transferring party.
§12.3 · Master agreement
03 · Review queue
Change-of-control risk not listed in diligence findings.
§12.3 · Master agreement
Counsel disposition
Awaiting finding
How it works
From packet to counsel decision.
The review loop stays on the files of record. Chat is not the system of record.
Step 01Packet assembly · workflow diagram
Workflow diagram
01
Sources
Records stay together
02
Evidence
Constraint stays cited
03
Decision
Human disposition
01 / 03
Gather the matter packet
Agreements, exhibits, and related files stay together so the controlling language can be found and cited.
What Raycaster finds
The misses counsel would catch.
Each finding includes the issue, the cited passage, and enough context to dispose it.
01
Missed obligations
Required consents, notices, or commercial terms absent from the reviewed answer.
02
Conflicting terms
Agreement language that conflicts across the main body, exhibits, or side letters.
03
Unsupported conclusions
Risk statements that cannot be traced to a controlling clause in the packet.
Matter types
One loop for the packets counsel already reviews.
01Master agreements
02Amendments
03Exhibits & schedules
04Side letters
05Diligence packets
06Disclosure schedules
07Consent packages
08Related-party documents
Questions
No. Raycaster surfaces cited findings on the files of record. Counsel accepts, revises, or rejects. Judgment stays with the reviewer.
Work with Raycaster
Bring a matter packet.
Walk through a contract or diligence workflow with cited findings and a clear review loop.
Book a demoPrefer published evaluation traces for Legal workflows? Inspect the public evidence library.
Open Legal evidence ↗