Before you send an agreement or declaration out for signature, Agreebase can optionally analyze the draft text and tell you whether it looks like it's missing something a court would typically expect to see.
What it looks for
The review checks the draft against the basic tenets contract law generally looks for in the jurisdiction you selected: whether the parties are clearly identified, whether the obligations are stated specifically enough to be enforced, whether consideration (something of value exchanged) is present, and whether key details like dates, amounts, or conditions are actually in the text rather than implied. It surfaces what it finds as a list of issues, not a pass/fail grade.
What "binding recheck" means
After you resolve one or more flagged issues, by editing the body text, you can run a limited recheck rather than a full fresh analysis. It re-examines the specific issues that were previously raised, so you can confirm they're resolved without waiting for the whole draft to be re-analyzed from scratch.
What it doesn't do
This is not legal advice, and it does not decide whether a court would actually enforce your agreement; no automated check can do that, because enforceability also depends on facts outside the text, and on the law of the specific jurisdiction and situation involved. It's a signal to help you notice gaps before you send something out, not a guarantee.
You can act on it in any of these ways:
- Revise the body to address what it flagged, and optionally recheck.
- Continue with unresolved issues, if you've judged them not to matter for your situation.
- Skip the review entirely and move straight to adding participants.
None of these choices change how Agreebase seals or verifies the record later; the review only affects what you see before you send it. See Limitations and availability for the broader legal-effect boundaries that apply regardless of this review's result.