Use Cases

What a “use case” means in DecoDocs

In DecoDocs, a “use case” is not an industry. It is a repeatable review workflow: a document type + the decisions you need to make + the specific risks you want to surface.

DecoDocs is built for structured documents (especially contracts, policies, and operational documents). It extracts usable signals from document text and returns decision-support output you can act on: a plain-language explanation, risk highlights, and type-specific checks/extracted fields when available.

This page maps core capabilities to operational scenarios. It also lists limits and non-goals so you can evaluate fit honestly.

• Primary goal: faster first-pass review with fewer missed “gotchas”
• Primary output: summary + risk list with severity and what to check
• Optional output: type-specific checks and extracted key/value fields (beta)
• Non-goal: replacing legal/compliance approval or guaranteeing enforceability

Capability overview (technical, but readable)

At a high level, DecoDocs does four things: (1) extract text, (2) run structured analysis for summary + risks, (3) optionally run type-specific checks, and (4) help you drill into confusing clauses via explain-selection.

DecoDocs works from extracted text. Output quality depends on how readable that text is (text-based PDFs behave very differently from scanned images). Limits are plan-dependent and enforced to keep usage predictable.

• Document type detection is a best-effort hint; you can override it
• Risk items include a severity (low/medium/high) plus “why it matters” and “what to check”
• Type-specific analysis (beta) returns checks plus extracted key/value pairs for that type
• Selection explanation is best for: dense definitions, liability carve-outs, termination triggers, and exceptions

Document ingestion (what you can open reliably)

The most reliable input format is a text-based PDF (where you can select/copy text). This preserves pagination and clause context better than screenshots or photos.

If your source document starts as DOCX/Google Docs, export to PDF for consistent extraction and clause referencing. Scanned PDFs can work, but often require OCR (plan-dependent).

• Best: text-based PDFs exported from the source editor
• Avoid: screenshots, photographed pages, heavily compressed scans
• If the PDF is password-protected/encrypted, extraction and analysis may fail

Scanned vs text-based PDFs (and when OCR is required)

If you cannot select/copy text from the PDF, it is likely scanned (image-based). In that case, DecoDocs may block analysis on non-OCR plans and recommend upgrading for OCR.

DecoDocs also runs a preflight check for size/scan-likelihood. Large documents or scan-heavy PDFs may be gated to Pro to keep results usable and predictable.

• Heuristic scan detection: if >20% of pages have very low extracted text (currently <30 characters), the PDF is treated as scan-likely
• Size gating exists on non-Pro tiers (example: extracted text >120,000 characters can require Pro)
• Token budgets also apply by plan; see Plans and Limits for current numbers

Clause identification (how structure is inferred)

DecoDocs does not “understand” a contract the way a human lawyer does. It works from extracted text and uses the document’s own structure (headings, numbering, defined terms, and repeated patterns) to infer clause boundaries and risk triggers.

References are best-effort. When a risk item mentions a clause, treat it as a pointer to verify in the PDF (especially for heavily edited or poorly formatted documents).

• Works best when documents have clear headings/numbered sections
• Cross-references (e.g., “see Section 9.2”) are surfaced as text, not validated for correctness
• If you need exact citations, use DecoDocs as a checklist and confirm against the original document

Risk detection (what is typically flagged)

Risk detection is driven by common contract patterns and the selected document type. It is designed to surface review priorities and negotiation targets, not to certify compliance.

Typical risk patterns DecoDocs can highlight include (examples):

• Renewal and auto-renewal mechanisms (including notice windows)
• Termination triggers, penalties, and survival clauses
• Liability caps, exclusions, and indemnities (scope and asymmetry)
• Payment terms, late fees, escalators, and audit/right-to-invoice mechanics
• SLA/service credits and one-sided performance remedies
• IP ownership, assignment language, and derivative works language
• Jurisdiction, venue, governing law, and dispute escalation paths

What you get back (outputs)

DecoDocs returns structured output you can copy into your review notes or use as a negotiation checklist. In the app, you’ll typically see a plain-language summary plus a list of risks with severity and “what to check”.

Type-specific analysis (beta) can add a checklist and extracted fields (shown as key/value pairs).

• Plain-language explanation (summary)
• Risk list (low/medium/high) with why-it-matters + what-to-check
• Type-specific checks + extracted fields (when available for that type)
• Usage feedback (estimated/remaining budget) depending on plan and action

{
  "plainExplanation": "…",
  "risks": [
    {
      "id": "R1",
      "title": "Auto-renewal without explicit approval",
      "severity": "high",
      "whyItMatters": "…",
      "whatToCheck": ["Notice window", "How to opt out", "Any renewal fee changes"],
      "anchors": ["…text snippet…"]
    }
  ],
  "keyPoints": ["…"],
  "missingClauses": ["…"]
}

{
  "plainExplanation": "…",
  "extracted": [{ "key": "Term", "value": "12 months" }],
  "checks": [{ "id": "renewal_notice", "ok": false, "message": "Renewal notice period is missing or unclear." }]
}

Scenario walkthrough: Vendor agreement review (procurement / onboarding)

Use this when approving a supplier, renewing a vendor, or preparing a negotiation plan before legal review.

The goal is operational: identify lock-ins and cost drivers early, so legal and procurement time is spent on the clauses that matter.

• Typical document: 10–40 pages + exhibits (SOWs, order forms, SLA, security addendum)
• Common risk patterns: auto-renewal, price escalators, unilateral changes, broad indemnity, SLA penalties, aggressive termination terms
• What to extract: term/renewal, payment schedule, termination triggers, remedies, limitation of liability, indemnity scope, IP ownership
• Output structure: executive summary; key financial terms; key obligations; risk highlights; clause pointers/snippets; suggested questions
• What you get: summary + prioritized risk list + checklist items you can convert into redlines/questions
• Recommended flow: confirm type → run type-specific analysis (if available) → highlight risks → explain selection for any clause you plan to escalate

Scenario walkthrough: Investor term sheet / SAFE-style documents (evaluation)

Use this to understand deal mechanics quickly and to prepare targeted questions for counsel.

The goal is not to “approve” a deal in-app. The goal is clarity: economics, control terms, and traps that change outcomes later.

• Typical document: 3–15 pages (term sheet) or 10–30 pages (long-form agreements)
• Common risk patterns: liquidation preference mechanics, participating preference, control/voting rights, conversion terms, MFN clauses
• What to extract: valuation/cap/discount, board/consent items, information rights, pro-rata rights, key definitions and exceptions
• Output structure: economics summary; control terms summary; key definitions; risk highlights; counsel questions checklist
• What you get: a plain-language summary of key terms + a checklist of clauses to confirm with counsel

Scenario walkthrough: Employment contracts & job offers (HR / people ops)

Use this to standardize first-pass review and reduce surprises for hiring managers and candidates.

The operational goal is consistency: ensure compensation, notice, restrictions, and obligations are explicit and aligned with your policy.

• Typical document: 2–15 pages (offers) and 10–30 pages (employment agreements + policies)
• Common risk patterns: non-compete / restraint wording, broad confidentiality, IP assignment overreach, probation and notice ambiguity
• What to extract: compensation, bonus/commission conditions, notice period, leave and benefits, restrictive covenants, IP terms
• Output structure: offer/employment summary; restrictions checklist; key dates/amounts; risk highlights; clarification questions
• What you get: summary + risk list you can turn into clarifying questions before signature

Scenario walkthrough: Lease agreements (commercial / residential)

Use this when evaluating a lease, renewing, or comparing options.

The operational goal is to prevent hidden cost exposure: outgoings, escalation clauses, make-good obligations, and termination/renewal mechanics.

• Typical document: 10–60 pages (leases often include schedules and disclosures)
• Common risk patterns: rent escalation and outgoings ambiguity, repair/maintenance allocation, make-good requirements, early termination conditions
• What to extract: term/renewal, rent schedule, outgoings, repair obligations, permitted use, assignment/subletting, dispute clauses
• Output structure: lease summary; cost drivers; obligations by party; renewal/termination mechanics; risks and questions
• What you get: decision-focused summary + list of “must confirm” items for negotiation or legal review

Scenario walkthrough: NDA review (inbound / outbound)

Use this for quick triage: is the NDA reasonable, or does it introduce unacceptable risk?

The operational goal is speed: identify deal-breakers before spending cycles on a full legal pass.

• Typical document: 2–12 pages
• Common risk patterns: overbroad confidentiality definition, long survival periods, assignment of IP by implication, non-solicit add-ons
• What to extract: confidentiality scope, exclusions, term/survival, permitted disclosures, return/destruction language, jurisdiction
• Output structure: scope summary; exclusions checklist; term/survival; red flags; suggested redlines/questions
• What you get: a short list of red-flag clauses + a plain-language explanation you can share internally

Scenario walkthrough: Service contracts (delivery teams / account management)

Use this when reviewing MSAs/SOWs so delivery teams understand obligations before committing.

The operational goal is execution: prevent “we didn’t realize we agreed to that” after signature.

• Typical document: 10–50 pages (MSA + SOW + SLA)
• Common risk patterns: one-sided acceptance criteria, liquidated damages/service credits, change control gaps, warranty scope creep
• What to extract: scope definition, acceptance terms, change control, warranty/support, SLA remedies, termination assistance, data handling clauses
• Output structure: delivery summary; obligations checklist; acceptance/change control; SLA remedies; risks and escalation questions
• What you get: an implementation-ready checklist of obligations and risk hotspots

Workflow integration (where it fits in real processes)

Docs readers are usually evaluating process fit. DecoDocs is most effective as a pre-legal (or parallel-to-legal) review layer that standardizes what gets checked and what gets escalated.

Think of it as: “triage + clarity + checklist”, then your existing approval path remains the decision authority.

• Pre-legal review: run a first-pass, then send counsel a short list of high-impact clauses/questions
• Vendor onboarding: standardize checks before supplier approval and contract signing
• Negotiation prep: generate a negotiation checklist from risk items, then redline with intent
• Audit preparation: re-run a contract set to surface renewal windows, termination triggers, and non-standard obligations
• Operations handoff: share plain-language summaries with non-legal stakeholders responsible for execution

What DecoDocs does NOT do (non-goals)

This section is here on purpose. Being explicit about non-goals prevents misuse and makes evaluation easier.

DecoDocs provides informational analysis and workflow support. It does not replace professional judgment.

• Not a substitute for licensed legal advice
• Does not negotiate or “approve” contracts for you
• Does not guarantee detection of every risk, obligation, or missing clause
• Does not verify enforceability across jurisdictions or fact patterns
• Does not interpret handwritten notes or low-quality photographs reliably

Security & data handling (what to expect)

Security posture and data handling matter for evaluation. DecoDocs is designed to avoid accidental storage and to keep document access user-initiated.

Core product distinction: “Open” (ephemeral analysis) vs “Upload/Save” (persistent storage). Storage and retention behavior is plan- and action-dependent.

• Open vs Upload/Save: analyze without creating persistent history by default; saving is an explicit action
• No background indexing for cloud drives: connected sources are designed for user-selected file access, not bulk sync
• Retention: operational data is retained only as required; stored-document retention follows account settings and support requests
• Access control: keep documents restricted to the intended account/workspace; avoid sharing outputs as a substitute for approvals
• See Security & Data Handling for integration notes and expectations

Limitations & edge cases (honest constraints)

Limits are not “bugs” — they are evaluation criteria. If these cases are common for your team, test them early.

When in doubt: try a representative document set (including one scanned PDF) and measure whether outputs are actionable in your real approval path.

• Very long documents: non-Pro tiers can be gated by size and repeated runs; see Plans and Limits
• Scan-heavy PDFs: OCR may be required; low-quality scans reduce accuracy even with OCR
• Highly customized or inconsistent drafting: outputs can be less predictable; verify clause references
• Multi-document cross-reference: DecoDocs analyzes the provided text; it does not automatically reconcile obligations across multiple attachments
• Tables, exhibits, and complex formatting: extraction can lose structure; prefer source PDFs with selectable text