Change one clause. See what it touches.
We’re building an AI editor for Word contracts that connects your edits to the clauses, definitions, schedules and source material they depend on. Review proposed changes with their context, then take them back to Word as tracked changes.
In development. Help shape the first release.
4. Fees and payment
4.1The Supplier shall issue an Invoice each month for the Services delivered during that month.
4.2For each Invoice, the Payment Date is deleted: thirty (30) inserted: forty-five (45) days after the Customer receives it. The Customer shall pay the Invoice by that date.
4.3Interest on any overdue amount accrues from the day after the payment deadline set out in clause 4.2 until the date of payment.
Referenced byClauses 4.3, 7.1(c) and 11.2 refer to clause 4.2.View source
Clause 4.3
Interest on any overdue amount accrues from the day after the payment deadline set out in clause 4.2 until the date of payment.
Clause 7.1(c)
The Supplier may suspend the Services if an Invoice remains unpaid for 10 days after the deadline in clause 4.2, provided it first gives the Customer written notice.
Clause 11.2
An Invoice outstanding on termination remains payable in accordance with clause 4.2.
These clauses refer to the payment term. A reference may need review without requiring a wording change.
Defined term“Payment Date” is defined in clause 1.1.View source
Clause 1.1
“Payment Date” means the deadline for payment of an Invoice, determined under clause 4.2.
Repeated in · out of syncSchedule 2 still specifies 30 days.View source
Schedule 2
Payment terms: monthly invoices, payable within thirty (30) days of receipt under clause 4.2.
The schedule repeats the original term and would be inconsistent with the proposed 45-day term.
Client correspondenceThe client requested a 45-day payment period.View source
From: Morgan, client team · Subject: Payment terms
Please change the payment period from 30 to 45 days, including the payment terms in Schedule 2.
Example supporting context. Interpreting correspondence is separate from resolving explicit clause references.
Keep the context with the edit.
A change rarely lives in one paragraph. Today, you assemble the context, paste it into a chat, bring the answer back, and check what else needs updating. Pilcrow is being built to keep that work together.
Map the document
Identify defined terms, clause numbers and explicit references. Keep each connection linked to its source.
Gather the context
Bring the relevant clauses, schedules, earlier drafts, related agreements and client instructions into the same editing workflow.
Edit and check
The agent queries that context, proposes a change, and runs supported structural checks. Findings give it specific issues to address.
Review in Word
Inspect the proposal and its sources. The intended output is real Word tracked changes for you to accept or reject.
Some checks should not depend on a guess.
Pilcrow’s rule-based parser is being built to map defined terms, clause numbers and cross-references. It can give the agent precise feedback about structural problems before you review a proposed edit.
For the same document and rule set, these checks are designed to be repeatable. Checking structure still leaves meaning, accuracy and legal judgment to review.
Undefined term
“Review Period” is used here but has no definition in this document.
cl. 6.3
Broken reference
This clause refers to clause 12.4, which is absent from this draft.
cl. 11.4
Unused definition
“Service Window” is defined here but is not used elsewhere in this document.
cl. 1.1
Starting with contracts. Building for connected documents.
We’re starting with Word contracts because their definitions, references and revisions make the cost of losing context clear. The wider ambition is an editing environment for knowledge work: reports, papers and audit files, with Markdown and LaTeX alongside Word.
Across those formats, the aim is the same: give AI the context and checking tools it needs, while keeping changes inspectable by the person responsible for the document.
Questions before you try it.
Can I try Pilcrow now?
Pilcrow is in development. Request early access and we’ll contact you when it is ready for testing. We’re also looking for people willing to share how they currently revise contracts.
Does it work inside Microsoft Word?
We’re starting with Word documents and tracked-change output. The first release’s editing workflow is still being developed; this preview does not represent a released Word add-in.
What uses AI, and what uses rules?
Rules handle supported structural checks, such as whether a reference resolves or a term is defined. The AI uses the available context to propose edits and respond to findings. Passing those checks does not establish that a document is factually or legally correct.
Can it use emails and related documents?
That is part of the planned workflow. Pilcrow is intended to bring relevant drafts, agreements and correspondence alongside the document, with sources you can inspect. The first beta’s supported inputs will be confirmed before testing begins.
Should I send you a contract?
Not through this form. Please describe your workflow without including confidential information. We’ll share the beta’s document-handling and security details before asking anyone to provide documents.
Is Pilcrow only for legal work?
Contracts are our starting point. We plan to apply the same approach to other connected documents, including reports and academic writing, with additional formats over time.
Help shape the first release.
If you regularly revise contracts in Word, we’d like to hear how you work. Leave your details for early access, or tell us where keeping track of changes becomes difficult.