Case Studies
See how mixus Legal AI handles common legal document scenarios. These examples demonstrate our capabilities across different document types and modification requests.Case 1: NDA Modification
Scenario
A startup needs to modify their standard NDA to make confidentiality obligations mutual instead of one-way, and extend the confidentiality period from 2 years to 5 years.Request
“Make this NDA mutual. Both parties should have the same confidentiality obligations. Also extend the confidentiality period to 5 years after termination.”
What Happened
1
Classification
Document identified as NDA with 95% confidence. Detected one-way
structure with Discloser/Recipient terminology.
2
Changes Applied
- Updated definitions to be party-neutral - Modified all confidentiality obligations to be mutual - Changed “Discloser” and “Recipient” to “each party” - Extended confidentiality period from 2 to 5 years - Updated signature blocks for mutual execution
3
Validation
All 5 passes completed successfully. No unexpected changes. One medium-risk
flag for extended confidentiality period (noted but approved).
4
Delivery
Three files delivered: redline DOCX (12 changes marked), clean DOCX, and
blackline PDF.
Change Summary
| Section | Changes |
|---|---|
| Definitions | 3 terms updated for mutuality |
| Confidential Information | 2 modifications for mutual scope |
| Obligations | 4 changes for mutual obligations |
| Term | 1 change (2 years → 5 years) |
| Miscellaneous | 2 updates to signature blocks |
Case 2: MSA Section-Specific Edit
Scenario
A legal team needs to modify only the liability section of an MSA to add a carve-out for gross negligence and willful misconduct.Request
“In Section 9 (Limitation of Liability) only, add a carve-out stating that the liability cap does not apply to damages arising from gross negligence or willful misconduct.”
What Happened
1
Classification
Document identified as MSA with 92% confidence. Section 9 located and
identified as Limitation of Liability provision.
2
Section Targeting
Edit restricted to Section 9 only. All other sections (including related
indemnification in Section 8) remained untouched.
3
Changes Applied
New subsection 9.4 added: “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the limitations
set forth in this Section 9 shall not apply to damages arising from a
party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.”
4
Validation
Section compliance verified—no changes outside Section 9. Risk analysis
flagged as medium risk (liability cap exception added).
Section Compliance Report
Case 3: Employment Agreement Revision
Scenario
HR needs to update an employment agreement to change the non-compete geographic scope and add a new intellectual property assignment provision.Request
“1. In the non-compete section, change the geographic restriction from 50-mile radius to the states where the company has offices (California, Texas, and New York).
- Add a standard intellectual property assignment clause that assigns all work product to the company.”
What Happened
1
Classification
Document identified as Employment Agreement with 88% confidence. Located
existing non-compete (Section 7) but no IP assignment section.
2
Non-Compete Edit
Section 7.1 modified: “50-mile radius of any Company office” changed to “the
states of California, Texas, and New York”
3
IP Assignment Addition
New Section 8 (Intellectual Property) added with standard assignment
language. Subsequent sections renumbered accordingly.
4
Risk Analysis
- Non-compete change: Low risk (narrower geographic scope) - IP assignment: Medium risk (new obligation for employee) Both changes flagged for review by senior HR.
Risk Report Excerpt
Case 4: Document Comparison
Scenario
Outside counsel sent back a revised contract. The legal team needs to see exactly what changed between the original version and the counsel’s markup.Request
“Compare our original MSA with the version counsel returned. Show me all differences.”
What Happened
1
Document Loading
Both documents loaded: original (Acme-MSA-v1.docx) and revised
(Acme-MSA-counsel-v2.docx).
2
Comparison
Deterministic comparison performed—no AI interpretation, just direct
document comparison showing all differences.
3
Output
Redlined document showing 23 changes across 8 sections. Change statistics:
15 additions, 6 deletions, 2 modifications.
Comparison Statistics
| Metric | Count |
|---|---|
| Total Changes | 23 |
| Additions | 15 |
| Deletions | 6 |
| Modifications | 2 |
| Sections Changed | 8 of 14 |
Case 5: Complex Multi-Section Edit
Scenario
A company is pivoting their business model and needs comprehensive updates to their SaaS agreement to reflect new pricing, service levels, and data handling provisions.Request
“Update the agreement to reflect our new pricing model:
- Change from per-seat to usage-based pricing
- Update the SLA to 99.9% uptime (was 99.5%)
- Add GDPR data processing addendum references
- Modify termination to allow 30-day notice (was 90 days)“
What Happened
1
Classification
Document identified as SaaS Agreement with 91% confidence. All target
sections located.
2
Multi-Section Changes
- Section 4 (Fees): Pricing structure rewritten for usage-based model - Section 6 (SLA): Uptime commitment updated to 99.9% - Section 7 (Data): New GDPR DPA reference added - Section 11 (Term): Notice period changed to 30 days
3
Validation
Required 2 retry attempts due to scope creep in initial attempt (validation
caught changes bleeding into Section 8). Final version passed all checks.
4
Risk Analysis
- SLA improvement: Low risk (more favorable to customer) - Shorter notice period: High risk (reduces planning window) High-risk item flagged for executive review.
Validation History
Key Takeaways
Section Targeting Works
When you specify sections, changes stay within those boundaries.
Risk Detection is Automatic
High-risk changes are always flagged for attention.
Validation Catches Issues
Our retry mechanism catches and corrects problems before delivery.
Comparison is Deterministic
Document comparison shows exactly what changed—no AI interpretation.
Try It Yourself
Upload a document and see how mixus Legal AI handles your use case.