Wolfia for legal teams

The deal landed a DPA on your desk. Get through the first pass without becoming the bottleneck.

When a DPA, DDQ, or security addendum hits the queue, Wolfia hands you a cited first pass instead of a blank doc. Every clause is checked against the same policy corpus that already answers your security questionnaires, so you are reviewing, not drafting, and the deal moves while you do it.

Built for GRC, customer trust and sales engineering teams.

Northwind DPA §7.2Needs review

How it works

From a cold addendum to a triaged first pass

01
Upload the DPA or security addendum
The Word doc or Google Doc the customer sent. Wolfia reads every section, the comments left in the margin, and any tracked revisions already in it.
Security addendum §5.3Does not meet
Vendor shall obtain Customer’s prior written approval provide 30 days notice before engaging any new sub-processor.
Preferred textSub-processor list published on the trust center, with 30 days notice before a change.
Maximum concessionNamed-list notice by email, 15 days, no approval right.
Suggested change
Vendor shall provide Customer with 30 days written notice before engaging any new sub-processor, and shall maintain a current sub-processor list on its trust center.
Standard terms · Data protection addendum v4
02
It reads your policies before it judges theirs
Your standard terms, your ratified playbook positions, what you have already signed, and the approved facts and manual overrides Wolfia already maintains for your security reviews.
Knowledge HubConnected integrations
PlatformSourcesLast updated
- Google Drive1,284 files4 minutes ago
- Confluence612 documents21 minutes ago
- SharePoint430 documentsSyncing now
- Notion188 pages1 hour ago
- Slack24 channels2 hours ago
03
Each clause comes back triaged and cited
Favorable, needs review, or not applicable, with the exact policy behind each flag attached. Clauses your corpus says nothing about are surfaced for you instead of papered over.
Tasks by assignee3 assignees
- How are production database backups tested?
  PPriya RamanApprovedConfidence 96
- What is your data retention period after contract termination?
  DDana OkoroAttention neededConfidence 62
- Do subprocessors undergo an annual security assessment?
  SSam WhitfieldApprovedConfidence 91
04
Take it to security, or export it with tracked changes
You walk into the security conversation with a triaged draft instead of a blank doc, and where a clause has to change the proposed redline is already written in your own paper’s language.
vendor-security-review.xlsxExport filled original
SecurityPrivacyInfrastructure
- B12Is data encrypted in transit?Yes. TLS 1.3 on every external connection.
- B13Frequency of penetration testing?Annually, by an independent third party.
- B14Is there a documented incident response plan?Yes. Reviewed and exercised every year.
Layout, formatting and dropdowns are kept exactly as the buyer sent them.

SOC 2 Type IIVisit our Trust Center

Real customer, real outcome

The same corpus that auto-answers security questionnaires at Amplitude now grounds the contract review at Amplitude

The job

The moment a DPA lands on your desk

Sales gets the verbal. Now there is a DPA, a data security exhibit, and the customer’s own security addendum in your queue. Two pages are tied to security policy. The clock is running on a deal that everyone else already considers closed.

What you actually want in that moment is not a tool. It’s progress, meaning you get through a defensible first pass fast without becoming the person every deal waits on.

So you do the only thing you can. You pull out the security-tied sections, drop them in a Slack thread or a Google Doc, and ping several people who each own a different policy. Then you wait. The deal slips while you chase responses, and you are the reason it slipped. That is the job Wolfia is hired for, and it’s the workflow one head of legal at a Wolfia customer described almost word for word.

The functional problem is that you are drafting the review from scratch when you should be reviewing one. "It involves Slacking normally a group of like five people, both because the information is spread out across different teams and bandwidth reasons."
Different people own different policies, so a two-page addendum turns into a multi-day coordination job before you can even start reviewing
The emotional problem is that you cannot be confident you have not missed risk when you are reading a blank doc. "They will just send me the underlying policy, and I am like, okay, this is what I actually just needed."
The social problem is that you are the queue every enterprise deal sits in, and the people downstream know it. It repeats on roughly every deal, week after week
You went looking for help and it did not deliver progress. In one legal team’s words, "we have now trialed five or six different legal tools and have not got to the point yet where we feel the value is there"

The progress you are not making

Several people

Pinged across teams before you can even start the review, then a wait for responses

Every addendum stuck in that round-trip is a deal slipping with your name on the delay, and a first round of policy answers you wait on before you can even start.

How it gets you through it

How Wolfia gets you to a defensible first pass

You review instead of draft

Upload the DPA or security exhibit (Word or Google Doc). Wolfia checks each clause against your existing policy corpus and marks it favorable, needs review, or not applicable. The two pages of security-tied sections come back already triaged, so the work in front of you is review, not assembly.

Confidence you are not missing risk

Every flag links to the exact policy it came from. The underlying policy text, the thing you would otherwise wait on the security team to send you, is attached to the finding from the start. You can defend the position because you can see what it rests on.

You stop being the bottleneck

Instead of pulling sections into a doc and Slacking several policy owners cold, you bring security a triaged draft. The conversation starts from what your policy says and where it conflicts, so the deal keeps moving and the delay is no longer yours.

Same corpus as security questionnaires

It reads the policies, prior questionnaire answers, and approved facts Wolfia already maintains for your security reviews, including manual overrides. Your first pass reflects your current stance, not a policy doc someone last touched a year ago in a shared drive.

Scoped to legal and security

The contract review lives in a workspace limited to the people who should see it. Incoming addendums and contract context stay inside that scope, separate from the customer-facing questionnaire side.

Grounded, not generated

Wolfia retrieves from your real corpus rather than writing new legal language. When the corpus has nothing on a clause, it says so and routes it to you, instead of inventing a position you would have to defend in front of opposing counsel.

One playbook

Why this is one corpus, not two

Your security and legal teams already share a knowledge base in Wolfia. The same SOC 2, the same policies, the same approved facts that auto-answer your security questionnaires also ground your first pass on a DPA. When security updates a policy or adds a manual override, you see it the same day. Legal and security stop maintaining two versions of the truth and stop discovering the gap mid-deal, in front of the customer.

The progress you make

What changes the next time a DPA lands

You open a cited first pass, not a blank doc, so you are reviewing within minutes instead of assembling for days
You can defend every flag because each one links to the policy behind it, so you are confident you have not missed risk
You bring security a triaged draft, so the initial round-trip with five policy owners is gone
The deal keeps moving and you are seen as the team that enables it, not the queue it sits in
Legal and security work off one corpus that stays current, so positions do not drift between deals

An honest note on maturity

Where this is today

The contract review is newer than Wolfia’s security questionnaire product, which is in production at Amplitude and Handshake. Today a design-partner legal team runs it on incoming addendums about once a week. Their read is that it "definitely sped things along" and "leads to a quicker conversation with security," and they still consult security on each one. We are not going to tell you it replaces that review or gets you to "done." The job it does today is getting you out of the cold start, the manual section pull, and the wait for the first round of policy answers, and it gets better every time you feed a position back in.

Why Wolfia

Built on the same foundation as security review

The contract review shares Wolfia’s core engine, which ingests documents in any format, grounds every finding in your real corpus, cites every position, and routes what it does not know to a human instead of guessing. The reason a customer legal team picked Wolfia over six-figure legal AI tools they had trialed was not better legal language. It was that "all the policies are already there," with the overrides and approved facts that keep them current. That is what makes the first pass one you can actually stand behind. See AI contract review software for the product in detail, how AI contract redlining works for the mechanics of a tracked-change redline, and the DPA and MSA review checklist for security teams for the manual version of the same pass.

FAQ

Questions legal teams ask

Does this replace my review, or the security team’s?

No, and we will not pretend it does. The job it is hired for is getting you to a defensible first pass fast, so you walk into the security conversation with a triaged draft instead of a blank doc and the deal does not stall on you. The customer running it today still consults security on every addendum and says it makes that conversation faster and shorter. It removes the grunt work and the bottleneck, not the judgment.

How do I know I am not missing risk in the first pass?

Every flag links to the exact policy in your corpus it came from, so you can see what each position rests on and decide whether you trust it. When your corpus has no policy on a clause, Wolfia says so and routes it to you rather than papering over the gap, so the things you still need to escalate are surfaced, not buried.

Will it hallucinate a legal position?

It retrieves from your real corpus rather than generating new language. When it has no evidence on a clause, it leaves it for you rather than guessing. Customers chose it over general-purpose legal AI specifically because it is grounded in their actual policies and approved facts, not boilerplate you would have to defend in front of opposing counsel.

How does this connect to the security side?

Same corpus. The SOC 2, policies, and approved facts that auto-answer your security questionnaires also ground the first pass, including manual overrides. When security changes a position, you see it the same day, so the two teams never drift and you never get caught committing to something engineering cannot deliver.

What formats does it take, and where do results land?

Incoming addendums typically arrive as Word docs or Google Docs, and that is what Wolfia ingests. Each section comes back marked favorable, needs review, or not applicable, with the policy linked, so you can take it straight to security or work it in your own doc.

Is our contract data secure with Wolfia?

Wolfia is SOC 2 Type II certified. Your corpus is scoped to your organization, the contract review is limited to the people who should see it, your data is never used to train shared models, and changes are audit-logged.

Customer stories