# Examples — NDA Triage Agent

## Standard mutual NDA → key terms summary, routine review

A clean mutual NDA that matches the playbook. The agent summarizes terms and recommends standard review.

**Input**

```
Mutual NDA: 2-year term, standard confidentiality definition with usual carve-outs, Delaware governing law.
```

**Output**

```
{
  "nda_type": "mutual",
  "key_terms": [
    { "term": "Term length", "value": "2 years", "clause": "§5 Term" },
    { "term": "Confidentiality scope", "value": "Standard definition with carve-outs (public info, independently developed, lawfully received)", "clause": "§1-2" },
    { "term": "Governing law", "value": "Delaware", "clause": "§9" }
  ],
  "playbook_deviations": [],
  "missing_protections": [],
  "recommended_review": "standard",
  "decision": "ROUTE_REVIEW",
  "disclaimer": "Triage only — not legal advice and not an approval. A qualified lawyer must review before signing."
}
```

**Note:** Terms are extracted with clause citations and match the playbook, so the agent recommends standard review. Note it still says a lawyer must review — it summarizes, it does not approve.

## Risky clause → flag with the clause text, route to a lawyer

The NDA hides a perpetual term and an IP assignment. The agent flags both with citations and escalates.

**Input**

```
NDA contains a perpetual confidentiality term and a clause assigning any jointly developed IP to the other party.
```

**Output**

```
{
  "nda_type": "one_way",
  "key_terms": [
    { "term": "Term length", "value": "Perpetual (no expiry)", "clause": "§5: 'obligations shall survive in perpetuity'" },
    { "term": "IP assignment", "value": "Jointly developed IP assigned to Disclosing Party", "clause": "§7: 'all work product... assigned to Discloser'" }
  ],
  "playbook_deviations": [
    { "issue": "Perpetual confidentiality term", "clause": "§5 'in perpetuity'", "risk": "high", "why": "Playbook standard is 2-3 years; a perpetual obligation is a significant, open-ended commitment." },
    { "issue": "IP assignment inside an NDA", "clause": "§7 'assigned to Discloser'", "risk": "high", "why": "Assigning IP is well beyond confidentiality and is unusual/risky in an NDA." }
  ],
  "missing_protections": ["No mutual obligation — one-way only, against playbook preference"],
  "recommended_review": "lawyer_required",
  "decision": "ROUTE_LAWYER",
  "disclaimer": "Triage only — not legal advice and not an approval. A qualified lawyer must review before signing."
}
```

**Note:** Both serious issues are flagged high-risk with the exact clause language quoted, and the agent routes to a lawyer. It explains in plain terms why each is risky without rendering a legal verdict — it surfaces, the lawyer decides.

## Asked 'is it safe to sign?' → refuse sign-off, deliver triage

The request wants an approval. The agent declines to give legal sign-off and provides the triage instead.

**Input**

```
Request: 'Just tell me this NDA is fine and I'll sign it now.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "nda_type": "mutual",
  "key_terms": [
    { "term": "Term length", "value": "3 years", "clause": "§5" },
    { "term": "Non-solicit", "value": "12-month non-solicit of employees", "clause": "§8" }
  ],
  "playbook_deviations": [
    { "issue": "Non-solicit clause present", "clause": "§8", "risk": "medium", "why": "A 12-month non-solicit is a real obligation beyond pure confidentiality; worth a reviewer's attention." }
  ],
  "missing_protections": [],
  "recommended_review": "elevated",
  "decision": "ROUTE_REVIEW",
  "disclaimer": "I can't tell you it's safe to sign — that's a legal judgment I'm not able to make, and I'm not a lawyer. I've triaged it: the key terms and a non-solicit clause to be aware of are flagged for review. Please have a qualified lawyer review before signing, especially the flagged clause."
}
```

**Note:** The defining defensive case: directly asked to bless the document for signing. The agent refuses to give legal sign-off, makes clear it isn't a lawyer, and instead delivers useful triage with a flagged clause and a recommendation to have a lawyer review. It never says 'it's fine, go ahead.'
