Proprietary Analysis. Unmatched Depth.

How It Works

Each clause is assessed against a proprietary risk taxonomy that identifies how contractual risk is transferred between parties. The engine evaluates the language of every clause against multiple risk vectors — not just obvious indemnity clauses, but also subtle mechanisms like deemed acceptance provisions, fitness-for-purpose obligations, and uncapped consequential loss exposure.

What Gets Analysed

The risk transfer engine examines:

• Liability allocation and limitation mechanisms
• Indemnity scope, triggers, and carve-outs
• Financial exposure including liquidated damages, caps, and uncapped obligations
• Insurance adequacy relative to risk allocation
• Warranty and defect liability provisions
• Consequential loss exclusions or inclusions

What You Receive

Per-clause risk scores with severity ratings (Critical, High, Medium, Low), confidence levels, extracted monetary values, and a clear explanation of which party bears the risk and why it matters commercially.

14 Ambiguity Types Detected

The engine classifies ambiguity into precisely defined categories — not vague observations, but specific, actionable findings that explain exactly what type of drafting deficiency exists and why it creates commercial risk.

• Temporal ambiguity — unclear timeframes, deadlines, or sequencing
• Referential ambiguity — unclear cross-references or pronoun targets
• Definitional ambiguity — undefined or inconsistently defined terms
• Conditional ambiguity — unclear trigger conditions or prerequisites
• Syntactic ambiguity — sentence structure that permits multiple readings
• Scope ambiguity — unclear boundaries of obligation or entitlement

Dual-Type Classification

Each finding is classified with up to two ambiguity types, capturing clauses where multiple drafting deficiencies compound. Confidence scores indicate the engine's certainty in each classification, enabling teams to prioritise review effort where it matters most.

Statutory Framework

Following the 2022 amendments to the Australian Consumer Law, unfair contract terms in standard form contracts are now void and carry significant penalties. Stact applies the full statutory test to every clause, identifying terms that may be at risk under the current legislative framework.

Three-Limb Test Applied Per Term

Each term is assessed against the three statutory requirements:

• Significant imbalance — does the term create a material imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations?
• Not reasonably necessary — is the term necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the advantaged party?
• Detriment — would the term cause detriment (financial or otherwise) if relied upon?

Why It Matters

Since November 2023, unfair contract terms carry penalties of up to $50 million per contravention for corporations. Stact's UCT analysis identifies exposure before it becomes a dispute — giving principals, contractors, and legal teams a clear picture of enforcement risk in their standard form agreements.

Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis

Security of Payment legislation differs significantly across Australian states and territories. Stact analyses payment provisions against the specific legislation that applies to your contract's jurisdiction — not a generic national standard that doesn't exist.

What Gets Checked

The SOP engine examines:

• Progress payment entitlements — are statutory rights to progress payments preserved or undermined?
• Payment timing — do contractual payment periods comply with legislative maximums?
• Reference dates — are reference dates properly established for payment claim purposes?
• Interest on late payment — does the contract address interest entitlements consistently with legislation?
• Suspension rights — are statutory suspension rights for non-payment preserved?
• Pay-when-paid clauses — are conditional payment provisions void under applicable legislation?

All 8 Jurisdictions Supported

Full coverage across NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA, TAS, NT, and ACT — each with jurisdiction-specific legislative references, thresholds, and compliance requirements built into the analysis engine.

Corpus-Grounded Comparison

Stact maintains a curated benchmark corpus of Australian construction contracts — scored, classified, and structured at the clause level. Your contract is compared against this corpus to determine where it sits relative to market norms, not against abstract best practice that no one can define.

Multi-Stage Assessment Pipeline

The benchmark pipeline runs four stages:

• Clause matching — each clause is matched to comparable clauses in the benchmark corpus by topic and function
• Score computation — clause-level scores are computed based on how the clause compares to the benchmark distribution
• Percentile ranking — each clause is assigned a percentile position relative to comparable clauses in the corpus
• Aggregate scoring — clause scores are aggregated into an overall Benchmark Score (0–100) with letter grade (A–F)

What You Receive

An overall Benchmark Score and grade, per-category percentile breakdowns, and clause-level comparisons showing exactly where your contract is better or worse than market norms — with the actual corpus language as evidence.

What's Missing Matters as Much as What's There

Traditional contract review focuses on what the contract says. But some of the most dangerous risks come from what it doesn't say. A missing force majeure clause, an absent liability cap, or a gap in the dispute resolution framework can create more exposure than a poorly drafted clause.

Contract Types Covered

Omission checks span nine contract types:

• Design & Construct (D&C)
• Construct Only (Traditional / DBB)
• EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction)
• EPCM (Engineering, Procurement, Construction Management)
• PPP / Concession (DBFM, DBFOM)
• Alliance Contracting
• Managing Contractor / Construction Management
• Early Contractor Involvement (ECI)
• Lump Sum / Fixed Price

Standard-Form & Contract-Type Aware

Omission checks are calibrated to both the standard form and the contract type. What's expected in an AS 4000 construct-only contract is different from a GC21, a FIDIC Silver Book EPC, or a bespoke D&C agreement. Stact applies the right checklist across 100+ standard form varieties and all major contract types.

Not Generic Advice — Corpus-Grounded Strategy

Stact's negotiation playbooks don't offer vague suggestions. Every recommendation is grounded in actual clause language from the benchmark corpus — showing you what comparable contracts actually say, at different quality levels.

Three Negotiation Modes

Select the strategy that matches your commercial position:

• Pragmatic — minimum viable improvements using commonly accepted language. Designed to succeed in competitive tender situations where aggressive pushback risks disqualification.
• Balanced — meaningful improvements that bring the contract to a fair middle ground. Suitable for negotiated contracts and repeat client relationships.
• Aggressive — maximum contractor protection using the strongest available language. Appropriate where the contractor has leverage or the risk profile demands it.

Per-Finding Strategy

For every risk finding, the playbook provides:

• Recommended position — the ideal clause language, sourced from the corpus
• Fallback position — the next-best alternative if the primary ask is rejected
• Compromise language — middle-ground wording that addresses the core risk
• Walk-away line — the minimum acceptable outcome below which the risk is unmanageable
• Talking points — plain-English arguments to support each position in negotiation

Meet ARI

ARI is your Artificial Risk Intelligence — but think of ARI less as a feature and more as a member of your team. ARI has read every clause, knows every cross-reference, and understands the legislation that applies to your contract. When you have a question, you don't search — you ask ARI.

How ARI Works

ARI provides contextual, clause-referenced answers:

• Ask anything — "What happens if the contractor is delayed by a force majeure event?", "What are my notice obligations under clause 34?"
• Grounded in your contract — every answer is sourced directly from the actual clause text, with references
• Context-aware — ARI understands the relationships between clauses, cross-references, and defined terms
• Jurisdiction-aware — ARI incorporates relevant state and territory legislation, especially for SOP and UCT matters

When to Chat with ARI

ARI is designed for real-time contract intelligence:

• You're in a tender meeting and need a quick answer — ARI is already across the contract
• You're on site and need to check a notice obligation — ARI responds in seconds
• Your legal team is reviewing an unfamiliar contract form — ARI knows it inside out
• A junior team member needs to understand a complex clause — ARI explains it clearly

Team Review, Clause by Clause

The Member Discussion Forum is Stact's built-in team collaboration layer. It lets project members post comments, raise concerns, and have structured conversations against specific clauses — so nothing gets lost in email threads or disconnected chat channels.

How It Works

The forum is designed for clause-specific collaboration:

• Clause-specific threads — every discussion is pinned to a specific clause, sub-clause, or finding
• Category-based notifications — team members assigned to a contract category are automatically notified when a discussion is raised in their area
• Cross-functional visibility — commercial leads see the payment discussions, legal sees the liability threads, project directors get the full picture
• Audit trail — every comment, response, and resolution is timestamped and attributed

Use Cases

The forum supports the full contract lifecycle:

• A contract manager flags a payment term and the commercial team discusses the risk before negotiation
• Legal raises a concern about an indemnity clause — the project director weighs in with commercial context
• During tender review, the team collaboratively works through flagged issues without switching between tools
• Post-award, the delivery team uses clause discussions to track and resolve contract administration questions