DATIMORE · WEB-084
A contract register with a source for every field
Synthetic demonstration. All names, references, text, proposals and review decisions are invented. This is an invented example. It uses no real contract or extraction software and does not show client work or provide legal advice.
1. Starting source
Document reference SIM-084-v1. The two page excerpts below are the complete source for this example. They contain only the names, dates and contract number used in the example, with no contractual terms.
Page 1 — document details
Line 1. Party 1: Company A
Line 2. Party 2: Company B
Line 3. Contract ID: SYN-084
Line 4. Start date: 1 October 2026
Page 2 — further details
Line 1. End date: 04/05/2027
No day/month order is stated in this invented source.
2. Rules for this example
- Use only the five labelled details shown below. Keep the original text, document version, page and line with each proposal. Do not infer obligations or legal meaning.
- Store a date as year-month-day only when its meaning is clear. If a detail is missing or unclear, leave its reviewed value blank and ask an authorized person to resolve it.
- The example contract administrator R1 checks every proposal against this exact source. Keep their decision and reason. Review the details again if the source document changes. A reference alone does not prove correctness.
- The record stays partly reviewed while any required field is unresolved. Do not use an unresolved value for reminders or other actions.
3. Proposed values and reviewed register
In this invented review, administrator R1 is authorized to check the five details. The review is dated 3 October 2026 at 09:00 Coordinated Universal Time. These are simulated decisions, not a report of an actual person's work.
Party 1
- Proposed → reviewed
- Company A → Company A
- Source
- SIM-084-v1 · page 1, line 1
- Decision
- Confirmed: exact text matches.
Party 2
- Proposed → reviewed
- Company B → Company B
- Source
- SIM-084-v1 · page 1, line 2
- Decision
- Confirmed: exact text matches.
Contract identifier
- Proposed → reviewed
- SYN-084 → SYN-084
- Source
- SIM-084-v1 · page 1, line 3
- Decision
- Confirmed: identifier matches, including its prefix.
Start date
- Proposed → reviewed
- 2026-10-01 → 2026-10-01
- Source
- SIM-084-v1 · page 1, line 4: 1 October 2026
- Decision
- Confirmed: named month makes the date clear.
End date — unresolved
- Proposed
- 2027-04-05 (5 April 2027)
- Reviewed value
- Blank — awaiting clarification.
- Source
- SIM-084-v1 · page 2, line 1: 04/05/2027
- Decision and next owner
- R1 withholds the proposed value: it could mean 5 April or 4 May 2027. The contract owner must clarify the source. If resolving it requires legal interpretation, refer it to the authorized specialist.
- What happens next
- Keep the source text and original proposal. Record the clarification and its reference, then have the authorized reviewer check it before entering a value. Until then, no date-based action.
Result: four fields confirmed; one unresolved. The register is partly reviewed, not cleared for automatic use. No end date has been invented to complete the row.
What this demonstrates
You can follow each reviewed value to its exact source and see why one proposal was withheld. This example shows how to keep the source and review decision with each value. No extraction software, accuracy, language support, permissions or live integration was tested.
Microsoft's documentation describes how extracted text and its place in the document can be kept for later checking. When you try a tool, check that each reference leads to the right text. Having a reference alone does not prove that a value is correct. Its prebuilt contract model currently documents English-language support, not Arabic-contract support.