Skip to content
Close

Contract Redlining

 

contract-redlining-record-writeback

Redlining, in the sentences the lifecycle gives it

Redlining is how the negotiation stage of a contract lifecycle proceeds. IBM's description is compact: the parties negotiate terms through revisions and redlining the document to address concerns, edits and required changes to the terms and conditions. IBM adds that AI-assisted redline tracking can help manage the changes, flagging any deviations from standard contract terms. Two things follow. Redlining is a record of disagreement rather than a formatting exercise, and it is the mechanism by which terms change between a draft and an execution copy.

What goes wrong in a redlining round

contract-redlining-document-template

A World Commerce and Contracting report cited by IBM found organizations lose an average of 11 percent of a contract's value after signature.
The same report attributes those losses to causes including poor negotiation, unrecorded changes and poorly planned renewals, each accounting for 2 to 3 percent of losses.
Unrecorded changes are the cause a markup round is placed to prevent, and altaFlow names working from outdated drafts as its own version of that risk.
IBM reads the research as pointing to a lack of clarity in how the contracting lifecycle is managed, with consequences following.

How the agreed document moves after the markup

After the markup, altaFlow describes a four-move loop for the agreed document. These are altaFlow's platform claims, not part of the stage IBM describes.

1

Data leaves the record

altaFlow pulls from Salesforce or captures a web form.

2

One pass builds the document

Conditional logic and dynamic tables assemble the correct version.

3

A governed workflow routes it

Approval and signature, every step tracked.

4

The result writes back

Into the system of record, with no re-typing.

What altaFlow states it brings to a markup

Six capabilities from altaFlow's negotiation page, ordered here by where they bear on a markup round. These are altaFlow's own product claims.

Redlining and versions

altaFlow claims edits, comments and document versions tracked in one place, to eliminate email chains and the risk of working from outdated drafts. Working from a superseded draft is the failure a checklist exists to prevent.

Side-by-side comparison

altaFlow describes visualising changes between document versions to speed up contract review and management. This is the capability behind the fifth check above: comparing versions rather than reading an account of what changed.

Clause library

altaFlow describes a centralized clause library letting sales and procurement build contracts from pre-approved legal language, reducing reliance on legal teams for standard agreements. Knowing what counts as standard is what makes a deviation visible.

Dynamic clauses

altaFlow states clauses can be inserted or suggested automatically based on contract data such as jurisdiction or deal size. That handles the clauses a redline should never have needed to raise in the first place.

Role-based permissions

altaFlow states it controls who can view, edit or approve agreements. Applied to a redline, this is what prevents an edit whose authority nobody verified at the moment it was made.

One trail to signature

altaFlow claims the entire history, from draft to signature, is captured in one immutable audit trail. The redline and the execution copy then sit in the same record rather than in two.

A six-point checklist for a redlining round

Six checks, in this order. Each one closes a gap the sources name rather than a gap general advice imagines.

One document, one place

No parallel copies circulating by email.
Standard language identified

Know which clauses are pre-approved before edits arrive.
Every deviation flagged

Mark departures from standard terms as they appear.
Comments attached to edits

Keep the concern next to the change it caused.
Versions compared directly

Read the versions side by side, not a summary.
Authority checked before agreement

Confirm who may approve each concession.

What IBM's sentence actually names

IBM's sentence on this stage names one mechanism and the three things it addresses. A markup that records only the first is a diff, not a negotiation record.

contract-redlining-approval-routing

Revisions and redlining

The mechanism IBM names for changing terms.

Concerns

The objection a change was made to address.

Edits

The change as it now stands in the text.

Required changes

Those a party treats as a condition.

Two records of documents kept in one version

Both accounts come from altaFlow's published customer records, and neither is a markup case; they are included for the version-control point they do record.

Version control at T2 BiosystemsT2 Biosystems ran workflows on MS Word and Adobe Acrobat, where end-users met an inconsistent experience and could not save a partly completed form

  • T2 Biosystems configured a no-code workflow to match their own process

  • Every end-user now interacts with the most current version of a form

  • Resulting in the elimination of version control issues, which is what the story page records, alongside save-and-return functionality, and its statement that the time savings were immediate without publishing any figure

HR paperwork at Royal CareRoyal Care ran HR paperwork and signature gathering through printing, mailing and retyping, with dual entry carrying a risk of errors

  • Royal Care streamlined the HR processes on altaFlow's no-code platform

  • The flows span onboarding through incident reporting

  • Resulting in the elimination of dual entry, on the card's own account, on a card that spans HR workflows from onboarding through incident reporting and that publishes no figure of any kind alongside it

Who marks up a contract

Three teams appear in altaFlow's own descriptions of this work, wanting different things from the same markup. The third comes from its approvals page.

Legal teams drastically reduce time spent on low-value reviews, in altaFlow's stated framing.

Procurement teams standardize vendor agreements and streamline onboarding, in altaFlow's own words.

Sales teams accelerate deal approvals for pricing exceptions, custom terms and contract modifications, routed to managers, RevOps and legal.

What none of those descriptions covers is how a markup round should be run, which is what the checklist above is for.

Two named speakers on keeping one record

Sam GinzbergChief Information Officer

Ginzberg is the named speaker for Royal Care, whose card spans onboarding to incident reporting. As published before the rebrand: 'There is no need for dual entry; WorkFlow eliminated the risk of errors.'

Mandy HoffmanBusiness Operations Manager

Hoffman is a named speaker for T2 Biosystems, and her account is about what a single record does to audit burden: 'Compliance audits, which once took weeks, are now completed in just days.' The story page publishes no figure.

Four checks worth doing deliberately

Four checks that explain why the six above are in that order, each closing a gap the sources name explicitly rather than one general advice imagines.

1

Flag deviations during the exchange, not at signature

IBM notes AI-assisted redline tracking can help manage the changes and flag any deviations from standard contract terms. A deviation caught mid-exchange is a decision someone makes; the same deviation found at signature is a renegotiation, and unrecorded changes are one of the three named loss causes.

2

Keep the concern attached to the edit

IBM's sentence names concerns and required changes alongside the revisions themselves. A tracked change without the reason behind it tells a later reader what the text says but not what was conceded, which is the thing a renewal or a dispute will need.

3

Read the versions, not the summary

altaFlow describes side-by-side version comparison as visualising changes between document versions to speed up review. A change summary is a second-hand account written by someone with a view about which edits matter, applied to a counterparty's edits before signature.

4

Separate conditions from preferences early

IBM distinguishes concerns and edits from required changes in the same sentence. Treating all three as equivalent is what makes a redlining round long: the conditions are the negotiation, and the preferences are what gets traded to settle them.

Governance the marked-up document sits under

Audit trails

IBM notes automation can provide an audit trail

Retention limits

GDPR sets a storage limitation principle

HIPAA Security Rule

Administrative, physical and technical safeguards for ePHI

SOC 2

An AICPA examination of a service organization's controls

Processing scope

GDPR covers automated and manual processing alike

Card-data handling

altaFlow routes transactions through third-party PCI DSS processors

What altaFlow states it brings to a markup

Six capabilities from altaFlow's negotiation page, ordered here by where they bear on a markup round. These are altaFlow's own product claims.
Redlining and versions
altaFlow claims edits, comments and document versions tracked in one place, to eliminate email chains and the risk of working from outdated drafts. Working from a superseded draft is the failure a checklist exists to prevent.
Side-by-side comparison
altaFlow describes visualising changes between document versions to speed up contract review and management. This is the capability behind the fifth check above: comparing versions rather than reading an account of what changed.
Clause library
altaFlow describes a centralized clause library letting sales and procurement build contracts from pre-approved legal language, reducing reliance on legal teams for standard agreements. Knowing what counts as standard is what makes a deviation visible.
Dynamic clauses
altaFlow states clauses can be inserted or suggested automatically based on contract data such as jurisdiction or deal size. That handles the clauses a redline should never have needed to raise in the first place.
Role-based permissions
altaFlow states it controls who can view, edit or approve agreements. Applied to a redline, this is what prevents an edit whose authority nobody verified at the moment it was made.
One trail to signature
altaFlow claims the entire history, from draft to signature, is captured in one immutable audit trail. The redline and the execution copy then sit in the same record rather than in two.

FAQs about contract redlining

Six questions that come up when a team tries to make a markup round produce a usable record.
What is redlining, in one sentence? The mechanism of the negotiation stage. IBM describes the parties negotiating terms through revisions and redlining the document to address concerns, edits and required changes to the terms and conditions, which places it third in its lifecycle sequence.
What should a redline record beyond the text change? IBM's sentence names three: the concerns behind the edits, the edits themselves, and which changes are required. A tracked change stripped of those tells a later reader what the text says, not what was conceded.
How do we spot a departure from our standard terms? IBM notes AI-assisted redline tracking can help manage the changes, flagging any deviations from standard contract terms. That presupposes the standard terms exist somewhere checkable, which is what a clause library is for at the authoring stage.
Why not just circulate the document by email? altaFlow's stated aim is to eliminate email chains and the risk of working from outdated drafts, which it presents as two things rather than one. Its claim is that edits, comments and versions tracked in one place address both.
Is a summary of changes acceptable for review? altaFlow's own capability here is side-by-side version comparison, described as visualising changes between document versions to speed up review. A summary is written by someone with a view about which changes matter, which is the wrong filter before signature.
What does the markup cost when it is not recorded? The research IBM cites attributes losses to causes including unrecorded changes, each of its three named causes accounting for 2 to 3 percent of losses, against an average total of 11 percent of contract value lost after signature.

Optimize your document workflows

From quick wins on day one to measurable impact in under 90 days. 

Request a Demo
44