A language model will produce a contract in eleven seconds that looks like the ones lawyers write. The gaps sit in places you would have to know contract litigation to notice. These four come up most.
The Four Failure Points
1. Definition Drift
A "deliverable" in section 2 turns out to mean something narrower than the "deliverable" in section 7. Opposing counsel will find that gap, and Texas courts might read an ambiguous term against whoever drafted it. That is you.
2. Governing Law Traps
Delaware shows up in the choice-of-law clause because Delaware shows up in most training data. If you operate in Texas and your counterparty sits in California, that default means you fly to Wilmington to argue a dispute over an invoice.
3. IP Ownership Leaks
The work-for-hire language reads fine until you reach the carve-out for "pre-existing materials." Your contractor keeps the rights to anything they can characterize as written beforehand, which is most of what they wrote.
4. Integration Clause Gaps
This clause exists to make the signed document the final word. The generated version often preserves the oral promises and the prior drafts you signed the contract to replace. Your counterparty gets to quote the email chain back at you.
The Fix
Keep using the tool. It gets the structure down in minutes and saves you the blank page. Run these four checks before anyone signs:
- ✓Read every defined term against every use of it
- ✓Check that the venue is somewhere you would be willing to litigate
- ✓Name the deliverables the IP clause is meant to cover
- ✓Confirm the integration clause supersedes what you meant it to
Draft with the tool. Have a lawyer read it before you sign anything you would be upset to lose a dispute over.