4 of 44 sections shown below, every value exactly as returned.
›Raw JSON for these sections
{
"object": "contract_review",
"beta": true,
"jurisdiction": "tx",
"party": "employer",
"filename": "grabagun-employment-agreement-ex10-1.txt",
"input": {
"chars": 34459,
"segments": 44
},
"classifier": {
"mode": "model",
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash"
},
"clauses": [
{
"id": "s21",
"number": "5.1",
"heading": "Definition and Use of Confidential Information",
"path": [
"EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT",
"CONFIDENTIALITY"
],
"start": 13989,
"end": 15618,
"chars": 1629,
"excerpt": "5.1 Definition and Use of Confidential Information. As used in this Agreement, “Confidential Information” means trade secrets and any other proprietary or confidential information that derives independent economic value to the Company from ",
"families": [
{
"family": "trade-secret-confidentiality",
"classified_by": "model",
"result": "verified_rule",
"rules": [
{
"jurisdiction": "tx",
"clause": "trade-secret-confidentiality",
"rule_id": "tx-tutsa-displaces-tort-not-contract",
"question": "Does the Texas trade secret statute wipe out our confidentiality clause, or does the NDA still do work?",
"rule": "The NDA still does work — that is the express carve-out. The chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret. But it does NOT affect: contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation. It also does not affect disclosure of public information by a governmental body under Chapter 552, Government Code.",
"trap": "The displacement provision is why a confidentiality clause is not surplusage next to the statute: TUTSA absorbs the common-law tort claims but leaves the contract claim standing, and a contract claim can reach material that never qualified as a trade secret at all. Note this section was AMENDED in 2025 and its subsection (c) was repealed effective 4 December 2025, so pre-2026 commentary on its scope should be re-checked rather than relied on.",
"status": "verified",
"as_of": "2026-09-14",
"notes": null,
"authority": [
{
"kind": "statute",
"cite": "Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.007",
"decided": "2013-09-01",
"verified": {
"retrievable": true,
"rank": 2,
"probe_query": "actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret may be enjoined and this chapter displaces conflicting tort remedies",
"index": "statutes",
"checked": "2026-09-14",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-statutes",
"row_id": "tx-stat_3ed35ace7c037e74",
"quote": "(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), this chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret. (b) This chapter does not affect: (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
}
],
"authority_checks": [
{
"cite": "Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.007",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
}
],
"trap_assessment": {
"result": "does_not_appear_to_trigger",
"explanation": "The clause defines Confidential Information as trade secrets and proprietary information, not as material that never qualified as a trade secret.",
"assessed_by": "model"
}
}
]
}
]
},
{
"id": "s26",
"number": "7.2",
"heading": "Non-Competition",
"path": [
"EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT",
"NON-SOLICITATION"
],
"start": 19667,
"end": 20392,
"chars": 725,
"excerpt": "7.2 Non-Competition. The Employee agrees that for a period of one year after termination of his employment with the Company he will not compete, directly or indirectly, with the Company in fields of business in which the Company is engaged ",
"families": [
{
"family": "non-competition",
"classified_by": "model",
"result": "verified_rule",
"rules": [
{
"jurisdiction": "tx",
"clause": "non-competition",
"rule_id": "tx-noncompete-ancillary-and-timing",
"question": "Is this non-compete enforceable, and does the consideration have to be exchanged at signing?",
"rule": "A covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made, and only to the extent its limitations as to time, geographical area and scope of activity are reasonable and impose no greater restraint than is necessary to protect the promisee's goodwill or other business interest. The employer's consideration does NOT have to give rise to its interest in restraining the employee from competing: consideration reasonably related to an interest worthy of protection -- trade secrets, confidential information or goodwill -- satisfies the statutory nexus (Marsh USA v. Cook, 2011, which abandoned the stricter test Light had stated). The employer's promise may still be executory when the agreement is made; if the employer then performs and a unilateral contract is formed, the covenant is enforceable so long as the Act's other requirements are met (Sheshunoff, 2006).",
"trap": "The superseded test is the one still quoted. Light (1994) required that the employer's consideration 'give rise to the employer's interest in restraining the employee from competing', and that sentence is still repeated in briefs and forms, but Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook (Tex. 2011) held it 'is not anchored in the text of the Act' and replaced it with a reasonable-relationship nexus -- which is why goodwill-based consideration such as stock options now supports a covenant. Light is abrogated, not erased: its 'otherwise enforceable agreement' step (mutual non-illusory promises) and its second prong (the covenant must be designed to enforce the employee's own return promise) were not the question in Marsh. A covenant that is a stand-alone employee promise with no new consideration from the employer still fails (Sheshunoff). And the health-care carve-outs are separate statutory conditions, not reasonableness factors: physicians under sec. 15.50(b), and since S.B. 1318 (eff. Sept. 1, 2025) dentists, nurses and physician assistants under sec. 15.501, each require a buyout, a one-year limit, a five-mile radius and clearly stated written terms.",
"status": "verified",
"as_of": "2026-09-16",
"notes": null,
"authority": [
{
"kind": "case",
"cite": "883 S.W.2d 642",
"name": "Light v. Centel Cellular Co. of Tex.",
"decided": "1994",
"court": "Tex.",
"verified": {
"cite_in_index": true,
"name_matches_index": true,
"support_verdict": "unclear",
"checked": "2026-09-14"
}
},
{
"kind": "case",
"cite": "354 S.W.3d 764",
"name": "Marsh USA Inc. v. Cook",
"decided": "2011",
"court": "Tex.",
"verified": {
"support_verdict": "supports",
"checked": "2026-09-16",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-caselaw-tx",
"row_id": "85385c21b4a84b05",
"cl_opinion_id": "2541088",
"quote": "Consideration for a noncompete that is reasonably related to an interest worthy of protection, such as trade secrets, confidential information or goodwill, satisfies the statutory nexus; and there is no textual basis for excluding the protection of much of goodwill from the business interests that a noncompete may protect.",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
},
{
"kind": "case",
"cite": "209 S.W.3d 644",
"name": "Alex Sheshunoff Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Johnson",
"decided": "2006",
"court": "Tex.",
"verified": {
"cite_in_index": true,
"name_matches_index": true,
"support_verdict": "unclear",
"checked": "2026-09-14",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-caselaw-tx",
"row_id": "ecfc809b4e80cb9c",
"cl_opinion_id": "894789",
"quote": "we hold that a covenant not to compete is not unenforceable under the Covenants Not to Compete Act solely because the employer's promise is executory when made. If the agreement becomes enforceable after the agreement is made because the employer performs his promise under the agreement and a unilateral contract is formed, the covenant is enforceable if all other requirements under the Act are met.",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
},
{
"kind": "statute",
"cite": "Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50",
"verified": {
"retrievable": true,
"rank": 1,
"checked": "2026-09-14",
"probe_query": "covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement",
"index": "statutes-exact (brute-force cosine on the corpus host; the SERVED approximate index does NOT return this section for this query -- see docs/TX-RETRIEVAL-ANN-RECALL.md)",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-statutes",
"row_id": "tx-stat_06c0abd3300be49a",
"quote": "a covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is ancillary to or part of an otherwise enforceable agreement at the time the agreement is made to the extent that it contains limitations as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restrained that are reasonable and do not impose a greater restraint than is necessary to protect the goodwill or other business interest of the promisee.",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
},
{
"kind": "statute",
"cite": "Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.52",
"verified": {
"retrievable": true,
"rank": 2,
"checked": "2026-09-14",
"probe_query": "covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement",
"index": "statutes",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-statutes",
"row_id": "tx-stat_f145f270eae3f9b0",
"quote": "The criteria for enforceability of a covenant not to compete provided by Sections 15.50 and 15.501 and the procedures and remedies in an action to enforce a covenant not to compete provided by Section 15.51 are exclusive and preempt other law, including common law.",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
}
],
"authority_checks": [
{
"cite": "883 S.W.2d 642",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": false
},
{
"cite": "354 S.W.3d 764",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": false,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
},
{
"cite": "209 S.W.3d 644",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
},
{
"cite": "Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.50",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
},
{
"cite": "Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.52",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
}
],
"trap_assessment": {
"result": "does_not_appear_to_trigger",
"explanation": "The clause is a non-competition covenant but does not mention consideration or the employer's interest giving rise to it.",
"assessed_by": "model"
}
}
]
}
]
},
{
"id": "s38",
"number": "14",
"heading": "GOVERNING LAW",
"path": [
"EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT"
],
"start": 26841,
"end": 27401,
"chars": 560,
"excerpt": "14. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced according to the laws of the State of Texas (regardless of that state or any other jurisdiction’s conflict of law principles). The Parties agree to submit any dispute, clai",
"families": [
{
"family": "choice-of-law",
"classified_by": "model",
"result": "verified_rule",
"rules": [
{
"jurisdiction": "tx",
"clause": "choice-of-law",
"rule_id": "tx-qualified-transaction-choice-of-law-overrides-policy",
"question": "Will Texas honour a choice-of-law clause even where the chosen law offends Texas public policy?",
"rule": "For a 'qualified transaction', yes — and that is the unusual part. The law of a particular jurisdiction governs an issue relating to a qualified transaction if the parties agree in writing that it governs the issue, including the validity or enforceability of the agreement or a provision of it, AND the transaction bears a reasonable relation to that jurisdiction. Subsection (b) then provides that the chosen law governs REGARDLESS of whether applying it is contrary to a fundamental or public policy of Texas or of any other jurisdiction. The section is expressly subject to §§ 271.007, 271.008(b), 271.009, 271.010 and 271.011, and to Chapter 272.",
"trap": "Subsection (b) is the whole payload and it is bounded: it removes the usual fundamental-policy escape hatch, but only for a QUALIFIED TRANSACTION, which is a defined term this row does not reach. Outside that definition the ordinary conflicts analysis still applies, so citing § 271.005(b) for an everyday commercial agreement proves nothing.",
"status": "verified",
"as_of": "2026-09-14",
"notes": null,
"authority": [
{
"kind": "statute",
"cite": "Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 271.005",
"verified": {
"retrievable": true,
"rank": 2,
"probe_query": "parties to a qualified transaction may agree that the law of a particular jurisdiction governs",
"index": "statutes",
"checked": "2026-09-14",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-statutes",
"row_id": "tx-stat_3b8a605e3105d028",
"quote": "(a) Except as provided by Section 271.007 , 271.008 (b), 271.009 , 271.010 , or 271.011 or by Chapter 272 , the law of a particular jurisdiction governs an issue relating to a qualified transaction if: (1) the parties to the transaction agree in writing that the law of that jurisdiction governs the issue, including the validity or enforceability of an agreement relating to the transaction or a provision of the agreement; and (2) the transaction bears a reasonable relation to that jurisdiction. (a-1) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the choice of governing law specified in the terms applicable to a certificated or uncertificated security issued by a foreign state as defined by 28 U.S.C. Section 1603 in a qualified transaction, including any change in that governing law, applies retroactively to all issues relating to such security. (b) The law of a particular jurisdiction governs an issue described by this section regardless of whether the application of that law is contrary to a fundamental or public policy of this state or of any other jurisdiction.",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
}
],
"authority_checks": [
{
"cite": "Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 271.005",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
}
],
"trap_assessment": {
"result": "does_not_appear_to_trigger",
"explanation": "The clause selects Texas law but does not reference § 271.005(b) or a 'qualified transaction'; it is a general choice-of-law clause.",
"assessed_by": "model"
}
},
{
"jurisdiction": "tx",
"clause": "choice-of-law",
"rule_id": "tx-forum-selection-and-choice-of-law-scope",
"question": "Will a Texas court enforce our forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses, and how far do they reach?",
"rule": "Enforcement of a mandatory forum-selection clause is required unless the party resisting it clearly shows enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause is invalid for fraud or overreaching. A contractual choice-of-law clause is enforced according to its own scope -- a dispute falling outside that scope is instead analyzed under a most-significant-relationship test, which can select a different state's law.",
"trap": "A choice-of-law clause drafted narrowly (e.g. covering only the contract's performance, not a related tort claim) will not automatically extend to every dispute between the parties -- read its scope literally, do not assume it is a blanket selection.",
"status": "verified",
"as_of": "2026-09-14",
"notes": null,
"authority": [
{
"kind": "case",
"cite": "148 S.W.3d 109",
"name": "In re AIU Ins. Co.",
"decided": "2004",
"court": "Tex.",
"verified": {
"cite_in_index": true,
"name_matches_index": false,
"support_verdict": "unclear",
"checked": "2026-09-14",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-caselaw-tx",
"row_id": "7d855b905df1b228",
"cl_opinion_id": "894598",
"quote": "In The Bremen, the Supreme Court held that a \"forum clause should control absent a strong showing that it should be set aside,\" and that \"[t]he correct approach [is] to enforce the forum clause specifically unless [the party opposing it] could clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.\"",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
},
{
"kind": "case",
"cite": "271 S.W.3d 228",
"name": "Sonat Expl. Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.",
"decided": "2008",
"court": "Tex.",
"verified": {
"cite_in_index": true,
"name_matches_index": true,
"support_verdict": "unclear",
"checked": "2026-09-14",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-caselaw-tx",
"row_id": "6da845e28db7d7f1",
"cl_opinion_id": "895066",
"quote": "Under Texas choice-of-law rules governing contracts (including oilfield indemnity clauses), we look to the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws — specifically section 187 for contracts that contain an express choice of law, and section 188 for those that do not.",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
}
],
"authority_checks": [
{
"cite": "148 S.W.3d 109",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
},
{
"cite": "271 S.W.3d 228",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
}
],
"trap_assessment": {
"result": "does_not_appear_to_trigger",
"explanation": "The clause covers 'any dispute, claim or controversy relating to this Agreement, the Employee’s employment or the termination thereof', which is broad, not narrow.",
"assessed_by": "model"
}
}
]
},
{
"family": "arbitration",
"classified_by": "model",
"result": "verified_rule",
"rules": [
{
"jurisdiction": "tx",
"clause": "arbitration",
"rule_id": "tx-arbitration-valid-but-chapter-scope-carve-outs",
"question": "Is this arbitration clause enforceable under the Texas Arbitration Act?",
"rule": "The clause itself is valid: a written agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable if it is an agreement to arbitrate a controversy that either exists at the time of the agreement or arises between the parties after that date, and a party may revoke it only on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract. But Chapter 171 does not apply at all to: a collective bargaining agreement between an employer and a labor union; an agreement for the acquisition by one or more individuals of property, services, money or credit in which the total consideration furnished by the individual is not more than $50,000; a claim for personal injury; a claim for workers' compensation benefits; or an agreement made before January 1, 1966. The under-$50,000 and personal-injury carve-outs can be opted back into, but only where the parties agree in writing AND the agreement is signed by each party and each party's attorney — and, for personal injury, only on the advice of counsel.",
"trap": "The attorney-signature requirement is the one that quietly defeats ordinary drafting. A perfectly standard arbitration clause in a consumer or small-services contract worth $50,000 or less falls outside the chapter unless each party's ATTORNEY signed it, and consumer agreements essentially never carry attorney signature blocks. The same is true of any personal-injury claim. Separately, this row is about the TEXAS act only: the Federal Arbitration Act may independently govern the same clause and is not addressed here, so 'outside Chapter 171' is not the same as 'not arbitrable'.",
"status": "verified",
"as_of": "2026-09-14",
"notes": null,
"authority": [
{
"kind": "statute",
"cite": "Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.001",
"decided": "1997-09-01",
"verified": {
"retrievable": true,
"rank": 2,
"probe_query": "a written agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable and a court shall order the parties to arbitrate",
"index": "statutes",
"checked": "2026-09-14",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-statutes",
"row_id": "tx-stat_0e49ea90a1815451",
"quote": "(a) A written agreement to arbitrate is valid and enforceable if the agreement is to arbitrate a controversy that: (1) exists at the time of the agreement; or (2) arises between the parties after the date of the agreement. (b) A party may revoke the agreement only on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
},
{
"kind": "statute",
"cite": "Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.002",
"decided": null,
"verified": {
"retrievable": true,
"rank": 1,
"probe_query": "this chapter does not apply to an agreement for the acquisition of property or services in which the consideration is not more than $50,000 unless signed by each party and each party's attorney",
"index": "statutes",
"checked": "2026-09-14",
"corpus": {
"dataset": "docketx/us-statutes",
"row_id": "tx-stat_d56c0dc61ea23df1",
"quote": "(a) This chapter does not apply to: (1) a collective bargaining agreement between an employer and a labor union; (2) an agreement for the acquisition by one or more individuals of property, services, money, or credit in which the total consideration to be furnished by the individual is not more than $50,000, except as provided by Subsection (b); (3) a claim for personal injury, except as provided by Subsection (c); (4) a claim for workers' compensation benefits; or (5) an agreement made before January 1, 1966. (b) An agreement described by Subsection (a)(2) is subject to this chapter if: (1) the parties to the agreement agree in writing to arbitrate; and (2) the agreement is signed by each party and each party's attorney. (c) A claim described by Subsection (a)(3) is subject to this chapter if: (1) each party to the claim, on the advice of counsel, agrees in writing to arbitrate; and (2) the agreement is signed by each party and each party's attorney.",
"checked": "2026-09-16"
}
}
}
],
"authority_checks": [
{
"cite": "Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.001",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
},
{
"cite": "Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.002",
"verified": true,
"index_verified": true,
"source_verified": false,
"corpus_verified": true
}
],
"trap_assessment": {
"result": "appears_to_trigger",
"explanation": "The clause mandates arbitration under AAA rules but does not show attorney signatures as required by Chapter 171 for certain contracts.",
"assessed_by": "model"
}
}
]
}
]
},
{
"id": "s39",
"number": "15",
"heading": "SEVERABILITY",
"path": [
"EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT"
],
"start": 27401,
"end": 27997,
"chars": 596,
"excerpt": "15. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement is or becomes or is deemed invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, (a) such provision will be deemed amended to conform to applicable laws of such jurisdiction so as to be",
"families": [
{
"family": "severability",
"classified_by": "model",
"result": "no_verified_rule",
"rules": []
}
]
}
],
"missing_families": [
{
"family": "venue-selection",
"result": "verified_rule",
"verified_rule_ids": [
"tx-major-transaction-venue-one-million"
],
"note": "Not detected in this document. Absence is not by itself a defect, and a clause the classifier missed would also appear here. The store holds verified tx rule(s) for this family; read them at GET /api/v1/contracts/rules?jurisdiction=tx&clause=venue-selection."
},
{
"family": "limitation-of-liability",
"result": "verified_rule",
"verified_rule_ids": [
"tx-lol-fair-notice"
],
"note": "Not detected in this document. Absence is not by itself a defect, and a clause the classifier missed would also appear here. The store holds verified tx rule(s) for this family; read them at GET /api/v1/contracts/rules?jurisdiction=tx&clause=limitation-of-liability."
},
{
"family": "force-majeure",
"result": "no_verified_rule",
"verified_rule_ids": [],
"note": "Not detected in this document. Absence is not by itself a defect, and a clause the classifier missed would also appear here."
},
{
"family": "warranty-disclaimer",
"result": "verified_rule",
"verified_rule_ids": [
"tx-warranty-disclaimer-magic-words"
],
"note": "Not detected in this document. Absence is not by itself a defect, and a clause the classifier missed would also appear here. The store holds verified tx rule(s) for this family; read them at GET /api/v1/contracts/rules?jurisdiction=tx&clause=warranty-disclaimer."
}
],
"choice_of_law_notice": null,
"coverage": {
"jurisdiction": "tx",
"read_at": "2026-09-17T06:38:30.295Z",
"families_with_verified_rules": [
"anti-assignment",
"arbitration",
"attorney-fees",
"choice-of-law",
"dtpa-waiver",
"electronic-signature",
"entire-agreement",
"indemnity",
"lien-waiver",
"limitation-of-liability",
"limitation-of-remedy",
"limitations-period",
"liquidated-damages",
"non-competition",
"prompt-payment",
"statute-of-frauds",
"trade-secret-confidentiality",
"unconscionability",
"usury",
"venue-selection",
"warranty-disclaimer"
],
"families_with_unverified_rows": [
{
"family": "force-majeure",
"statuses": [
"no-verified-authority"
]
}
],
"families_without_rules": [
"consumer-protection-waiver",
"notices",
"payment-terms",
"severability",
"termination"
],
"verified_rules": 26,
"checkable_against_our_index": true,
"publicly_served": true,
"note": "Verified rules exist for 21 clause families in \"tx\". Every other family is reviewed for presence only and says no_verified_rule."
},
"summary": {
"segments": 44,
"classified_clauses": 22,
"clauses_with_verified_rules": 14,
"clauses_without_verified_rule": 8,
"appears_to_trigger": 2,
"unclear": 0,
"not_assessed": 0,
"missing_standard_families": 4,
"text": "44 sections read; 22 classified into clause families. 14 matched a verified tx rule from the store; 8 have no verified tx rule and were not checked against tx law. Trap assessments: 2 appear to trigger a recorded trap, 0 unclear, 0 not assessed. 4 of 12 commonly included families were not detected."
},
"disclosures": {
"holds_contract_prose": false,
"can_answer_as_of_a_date": false,
"model_writes_law": false,
"stores_submitted_contract": false,
"rules_source": "Every rule, trap and authority is copied verbatim from the DocketRouter contract-law store (GET /api/v1/contracts/rules) at request time.",
"not_legal_advice": "For licensed attorneys. This is a research aid, not legal advice and not a substitute for an attorney's review. Rules and authorities are copied from DocketRouter's verified contract-law store for the jurisdiction you named; a clause marked no_verified_rule has NOT been checked against that jurisdiction's law and may be unenforceable or require changes. Clause classification and trap assessments are made by a language model and can be wrong. The store does not track later amendments or decisions after each rule's as_of date."
},
"usage": {
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash",
"calls": [
{
"purpose": "classify",
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash",
"input_tokens": 4789,
"output_tokens": 234,
"cost_usd": 0.000436266,
"provider": "DeepInfra",
"latency_ms": 6130,
"ok": true,
"finish_reason": "stop",
"max_output_tokens": 1544
},
{
"purpose": "trap_assessment",
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash",
"input_tokens": 5616,
"output_tokens": 881,
"cost_usd": 0.000276948,
"provider": "DeepInfra",
"latency_ms": 16228,
"ok": true,
"finish_reason": "stop",
"max_output_tokens": 2870
}
],
"input_tokens": 10405,
"output_tokens": 1115,
"cost_usd": 0.000713,
"cost_complete": true
}
}