Contraparte

A contract is a power problem, not a reading problem. The stronger side writes the document; the weaker side signs it alone, often in a second language. Every other contract AI is aligned to the side that wrote it. Harvey, CoCounsel and Spellbook sell per seat to law firms, and the firm's client is almost always the party with counsel — the party that drafted the document. That is not an engineering gap, it is who signs their invoices. An incumbent cannot serve the counterparty without cannibalising its own buyer. Contraparte is built for the other side of the table, and everything follows from that. Seven AI stages run end to end, none stubbed: segmentation keeping the document's own clause labels; three independent panel reviews — Hermes 3 (Llama 70B), Qwen 2.5 72B, Mistral Small 3.2, separate requests, zero shared context, all served by Featherless AI; a redlined contract where each risky clause keeps its text and gains a [PROPUESTA →] counter-clause; and negotiation emails in Spanish and English, the English one drafted rather than translated. Consensus is computed in code, never asked of a model. It is built to refuse. A model that breaks the JSON schema shows "sin veredicto", never an invented verdict. A transport failure says so in Spanish and keeps your contract visible underneath the error. When the segmenter loses a clause, the app names it unprompted. The buyer is the jefe de personas at a Chilean staffing agency, out of the labour-compliance budget line: Chilean law makes the agency jointly liable for the contracts it issues, so this clause is its exposure too. Two thousand contracts through the panel costs under $20. Today this review does not happen at all. A lawyer costs more than a week of the wage the contract pays. The comparison is not against Harvey's price, it is against zero. The demo contract is my own, redacted. Clause SEXTO b pre-authorizes salary deductions for damage caused by negligence. All three models flag it RED, independently.