Document Accuracy

What our documents get right, and where they do not

Most tools in this category avoid this page. We think that is a mistake — a user who understands the limits gets a better outcome than one who assumes there are none. 

What AI drafting reliably gets right

Structure. The model does not forget the residuary clause in a will, the exclusions in an NDA, or the governing law provision. Human drafters working from memory routinely do.

Completeness on standard documents. For document types with well-established patterns — NDAs, employment contracts, residential leases, privacy policies, partnership agreements — the output covers the provisions those documents conventionally contain.

Consistency. The tenth contract has the same structure as the first.

Adaptation to what you describe. Three partners with unequal contributions, a break clause at month 18, a fixed-term contract with unusual IP terms. Describing a variation produces a document shaped around it.

Jurisdictional conventions. Selecting country and state changes the components and language used — not perfectly, but meaningfully.

Where it falls short

Statutory figures. Contribution rates, tax thresholds, deposit caps, notice minimums and filing deadlines change, sometimes annually. Treat any specific number in a generated document as requiring verification against current official sources.

Execution formalities. The most common cause of failure, and not a drafting problem at all. A will needs correct witnessing. Some documents need notarisation, stamping or registration. The draft cannot do this for you, and getting it wrong can void an otherwise sound document.

Rapidly changing or narrow law. Coverage of widely documented legal systems is stronger than coverage of recent legislative changes or highly local requirements.

Genuinely novel arrangements. Standard patterns cover most commercial situations. Something with no precedent has no pattern to draw on.

Fabrication risk. Generative models can produce confident, well-formed text that is wrong — a plausible-sounding citation, an inapplicable clause, a figure that looks reasonable and is not. This is inherent to the technology.

Knowing what you did not ask for. The model works from your description. It will not tell you that you have overlooked something a lawyer would have raised.

What you should always check

Before signing anything generated here:

• Names — full legal entity names, spelled correctly. Enforcement against the wrong entity is a genuine problem
• Dates — start, end, notice periods, effective dates
• Amounts — every figure, in numerals and words where both appear
• Any statutory rate or threshold — against a current official source
• Jurisdiction — that the governing law clause says what you intended
• Execution requirements — witnesses, notarisation, stamping or registration where applicable
• That the document says what you meant — read it properly, not diagonally

This takes a few minutes and is the difference between a usable document and a decorative one.

When to involve a professional

We would rather tell you this than have you discover it later.

• The value at risk is significant relative to your circumstances
• The other side is legally represented
• Execution formalities are strict — wills especially
• The situation is unusual, cross-border, or in a regulated sector
• Something has already gone wrong

Review of a competent draft is considerably cheaper than drafting from scratch, which is one of the more practical reasons to generate first and review second. This is covered further in AI vs Lawyer.

How we try to reduce error

Jurisdiction is asked for before drafting, not treated as an afterthought.

Every clause is editable before download, because review is expected rather than optional.

Warnings sit where the risk is. The will generator carries an execution warning above the fold rather than buried in a footer, because wills fail on witnessing more than on wording.

We say when we do not know. Where a requirement depends on your jurisdiction, our pages say so instead of guessing.

FAQs

How accurate are AI-generated legal documents? 

Structurally they are reliable for standard document types — the provisions such documents conventionally contain are generally present. Accuracy is weakest on specific statutory figures, recent legal changes and unusual arrangements, all of which should be verified.

Can I rely on a generated document without checking it? 

No. Verify names, dates, amounts, jurisdiction and any statutory figure, and confirm the execution requirements that apply. The review step is part of the process, not an optional extra.

Will the AI invent something that is not true?

 It can. Generative models sometimes produce confident text that is incorrect. This is why every clause is editable and why we recommend professional review for anything significant.

Are your documents lawyer-drafted? 

No. Documents are generated by AI from your description. IndigoEDocs is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.

What is the most common reason a document fails?

 Improper execution rather than poor drafting — most often a will signed without the witnessing its jurisdiction requires, or a document that needed notarisation, stamping or registration and did not get it.

What should I do if I find an error in a generated document? 

Edit it before downloading; every clause is editable. If you believe the model produced something systematically wrong, tell us at support@indigoedocs.com.

Trust Center · AI Policy · Legal Disclaimer