Can inline AI work with our existing Word templates and styles?

Yes. It opens the existing .docx file and works within its heading styles, numbering, tables, headers, footers, and pagination. When creating a new document, it can use an existing organizational template as the formatting baseline.

Can it review long, heavily negotiated contracts?

Yes. It reads the agreement and its exhibits together, checks that every defined term means the same thing throughout and that clause references line up, then reviews each clause for risk, missing language, and conflicts. It leaves a Word redline with review notes and fallback positions.

Which source files can it use to build a Word document?

It can work from Word, PDF, Excel, PowerPoint, CSV, and common image formats in one task. It reconciles tables and prose across those sources and can carry filenames, as-of dates, and citations into the final Word document.

Can I review AI edits before they are applied?

Yes. Insertions and deletions appear in Word Track Changes first. You can inspect the revised document and then accept or reject the complete change set, rather than letting an unseen rewrite overwrite the original.

Does Microsoft Word need to be installed?

Direct control of the Word interface requires Microsoft Word for Windows. inline AI does not remotely automate Word for the web; in supported environments, it works with your local files inside the desktop document workflow.

Word

Complex Word documents, handled end to end.Complex Word documents, handled end to end.

Contract review, tracked changes, long-form reports, and final formatting - carried through to the finished document.

Reviews complex contracts clause by clause

Works out what every defined term actually means and how the clauses hang together, then redlines one-sided or conflicting language in Track Changes.

AutoSaveOffMSA_Cloud_Migration_Legal_Redline_v7

FileHomeInsertDrawDesignLayoutReferencesReviewViewHelpCommentsShare

MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT

7. Acceptance and Warranty

7.1 Customer shall notify Supplier of any nonconformity within five (5) Business Daysten (10) Business Days after delivery. Failure to respond shall constitute irrevocable acceptancetrigger a three-Business-Day cure notice before deemed acceptance.

7.2 Supplier warrants that the Deliverables will materially conform to the Specifications for six (6) monthstwelve (12) months following acceptance. Supplier will correct reproducible defects at no additional charge.

Review note: added a cure process before deemed acceptance and aligned the warranty period with the playbook.

11. Limitation of Liability

Each party's aggregate liability shall not exceed all losses arising from this Agreement100% of the Fees paid or payable in the preceding twelve months. The cap does not apply to fraud, willful misconduct, breach of confidentiality, personal-data incidents, or third-party intellectual-property claims. All consequential and special damages are recoverableNeither party is liable for unforeseeable indirect, special, or consequential damages.

Issue	Draft	Proposed position	Risk
Liability	Unlimited; indirect damages included	100% fee cap with carve-outs	High
Background IP	All technology transfers to Customer	Only bespoke deliverables transfer	High
Acceptance	Automatic after five days	Ten days plus cure notice	Medium

9 / 24

Review this MSA for the supplier. Compare unlimited liability, IP ownership, and deemed acceptance against our playbook and DPA, then redline the contract in Track Changes.

I’ll work out what each defined term means and check that every clause reference lines up across the 24-page agreement and all three exhibits before editing anything.

Scanned 42 clauses and 6 schedules

Mapped liability, acceptance, IP, and privacy terms

Found 2 broken cross-references

Section 4 → Schedule 2; Section 15 → DPA §6

Done

Checked liability against the services playbook

Applied 18 positions from the negotiation matrix

Confirmed 72-hour breach notice in the DPA

Done

23 insertions and 17 deletions

Added 14 legal review notes

Preserved numbering and document styles

Done

Review summary

·3 high-risk issues: uncapped liability, background-IP transfer, and restricted data export
·5 medium-risk issues: acceptance, warranty, subprocessors, termination effects, and governing law
·Negotiation path: each issue includes preferred language and a fallback position

Commercial_Negotiation_Matrix_v4.xlsx

Data_Processing_Addendum.pdf

Services_Agreement_Playbook_2026.pdf

Builds long reports from structure to finish

Turns scattered research into a decision document with a coherent argument, sourced tables, footnotes, contents, headers, and pagination.

AutoSaveOffBoard_Report_Japan_Market_Entry_v3

FileHomeInsertDrawDesignLayoutReferencesReviewViewHelpCommentsShare

JAPAN B2B SAAS MARKET ENTRY

Board Decision Paper · Corporate Strategy · August 2026

4. Entry Strategy and Phased Investment

Japan’s mid-market workflow-automation segment is expected to grow from ¥482 billion in 2025 to ¥741 billion in 2029. Thirteen of the eighteen prospective customers interviewed ranked compatibility with existing document templates and approval workflows as a prerequisite for adopting generative AI. The strongest entry wedge is therefore deep Microsoft Office workflow integration, not a general-purpose chat product.

Recommendation: enter through professional-services firms in Tokyo and Osaka, then raise partner-sourced revenue to 35% within twelve months.

Phase	Timing	Primary work	Cumulative	Decision gate
1. Validate	0–6 months	Localization; 20 design partners	$0.63m	12% paid conversion
2. Expand	7–18 months	Tokyo sales team; 5 resellers	$1.85m	$2.4m ARR
3. Establish	19–36 months	Osaka hub; enterprise channel	$3.84m	31-month payback

4.3 Principal Risks and Mitigations

• Security-review delay - localize the ISMS and SOC 2 evidence package before the first enterprise pilot and run partner diligence in parallel.

• Limited local proof - co-develop profession-specific templates with tax, legal, and consulting design partners.

Note: currency conversion uses the 30 June 2026 closing rate. Detailed base-case assumptions appear in Appendix C.

18 / 36

Use these sources to write a board-ready Japan market-entry report. Make it at least 30 pages, include investment and exit gates, and cite every external claim in footnotes.

I’ll normalize source dates and metric definitions first, then draft an eight-chapter decision paper around the board’s six key questions.

Read 214 pages of market research

Compared 12 competitors and 37 plans

Coded themes across 18 customer interviews

Done

Executive summary → market → customer → competition → strategy → financials → risk → decision

Mapped six board questions to supporting evidence

Removed 11 duplicate claims

Done

14 tables, 31 footnotes, 3 appendices

Applied heading styles, TOC, and table captions

Cross-checked amounts, units, and as-of dates

Done

Decision package

·Recommendation: stage entry through Tokyo and Osaka; target 35% partner-sourced revenue
·Investment: $3.84m cumulative over three years; 31-month base-case payback
·Exit gate: paid conversion below 8% or ARR below $0.9m at month twelve

Japan_SaaS_Market_Outlook_2026.pdf

Competitor_Pricing_Feature_Matrix.xlsx

Japan_Entity_Three_Year_Model.xlsx

Customer_Interview_Synthesis.docx

Market_Entry_Workshop_Notes.pptx

Synthesizes many sources into one document

Reconciles numbers and claims across Excel, PDF, Word, PowerPoint, and CSV, then produces a source-linked decision memo.

AutoSaveOffInvestment_Committee_Decision_Memo_Aurora

FileHomeInsertDrawDesignLayoutReferencesReviewViewHelpCommentsShare

INVESTMENT COMMITTEE DECISION MEMO

Project Aurora · Series B · 2 August 2026

1. Recommendation

Approve a conditional $5.2 million investment subject to four closing conditions. The strongest evidence is enterprise net-revenue retention and the public-sector pipeline; the principal risks are top-three customer concentration and incomplete security certification.

2. Evidence Reconciliation

Decision metric	Verified	Confidence	Supporting evidence
Net revenue retention	128%	High	Customer cohorts; operating model
FY26 forecast ARR	$12.2m	Medium	Operating model; sales pipeline
Top-three concentration	41%	High	Customer cohorts; sales pipeline
Security certifications	2 of 4	High	Technical diligence; assessment

Source conflict resolved

The investor deck states FY25 ARR of $7.2 million, while the operating model reports $6.8 million. The deck includes July contracts at verbal-commit stage; the model includes executed agreements only. This memo uses the conservative $6.8 million figure.

3. Conditions Precedent

• Complete the ISMS preliminary audit and provide remediation evidence for three critical findings before closing.

• Obtain twelve-month renewal letters from the two largest customers.

5 / 17

Read every diligence file and synthesize an investment-committee memo. When numbers conflict, find the reason and use the conservative figure. Cite a source for every conclusion.

I’ll normalize all twelve files into one metric framework and draft only conclusions supported by at least two independent sources.

5 PDFs, 4 spreadsheets, 2 Word files, 1 deck

Extracted 94 financial, customer, product, technical, and legal claims

Grouped 17 duplicate evidence records

Done

Recalculated ARR, NRR, and customer concentration

Explained 8 source conflicts

Separated 11 assumptions from 37 verified facts

Done

6 evidence tables and 28 footnotes

4 closing conditions and 3 stop conditions

Verified every file reference and source link

Done

Final recommendation

Conditionally approve $5.2 million, with ISMS preliminary approval and two strategic-customer renewal letters required before closing.

Aurora_Investor_Deck.pdf

FY24_FY26_Operating_Model.xlsx

Customer_Cohorts_Raw.csv

Technical_Diligence_Final.pdf

Legal_Diligence_Issue_List.docx

Product_Roadmap_2026.pptx

Sales_Pipeline.xlsx

Competitor_Benchmark.pdf

Founder_Interview_Transcript.docx

Security_Assessment.xlsx

Shareholders_Agreement_Terms.pdf

Market_Outlook_Research.pdf

Review, accept, or reject every change

See only the language AI changed in Word Track Changes, then approve individual edits or decide on the complete revision set.

AutoSaveOffPrivacy_Notice_2026_Legal_Review

FileHomeInsertDrawDesignLayoutReferencesReviewViewHelpCommentsShare

PRIVACY NOTICE - PROPOSED REVISION

8. Retention and Deletion

After the purpose of collection has been fulfilled, the Company will delete personal data without delayirreversibly delete personal data within five Business Days after the applicable retention period ends. Where law requires continued retention, the data will be segregated in an access-controlled archive for the required period.

Record category	Basis	Retention	Deletion trigger
Contracts and payments	E-commerce law	5 years	Within 5 Business Days
Customer support records	Dispute management	3 years	1 year
Access logs	Communications law	3 months	Automatic deletion

10. Individual Rights

An individual may request access, correction, deletion, or restriction at any time. The Company will provide the outcome or grounds for delay within ten daysthe period required by applicable law. Agents must submit a separate formA legal representative or authorized agent may submit identity evidence and a valid authorization.

Review note: replaced a fixed ten-day commitment with the governing statutory deadline and clarified representative requests.

7 / 22

Review this notice against the 2026 privacy-law changes and our retention schedule. Fix ambiguous language, but show me every change before applying it.

Reviewed 22 pages and 14 governing provisions

Cross-checked 9 retention categories

Found 3 conflicts with current language

Done

7 legal-meaning corrections

6 retention and deletion clarifications

5 ambiguity and duplication edits

Done

The original remains unchanged. Review the 18 tracked edits, then accept or reject the complete revision set.

18 changes · 11 insertions · 7 deletions

Privacy_Law_2026_Amendments.pdf

Internal_Data_Retention_Schedule.xlsx

The hardest part of contract review is not one sentence; it is keeping every clause, exhibit, and fallback position consistent. inline AI preserves that context and leaves a reviewable Word redline, so moving faster no longer means reviewing less carefully.

Frequently Asked Questions

From first draft to final review. Put Word documents in inline AI’s hands.

Research, long-form drafting, tables, footnotes, and tracked review, carried through to the finished document.

Get Download LinkDownload forWindows

Builds long reports from structure to finish

Turns scattered research into a decision document with a coherent argument, sourced tables, footnotes, contents, headers, and pagination.

AutoSaveOffBoard_Report_Japan_Market_Entry_v3

FileHomeInsertDrawDesignLayoutReferencesReviewViewHelpCommentsShare

JAPAN B2B SAAS MARKET ENTRY

Board Decision Paper · Corporate Strategy · August 2026

4. Entry Strategy and Phased Investment

Recommendation: enter through professional-services firms in Tokyo and Osaka, then raise partner-sourced revenue to 35% within twelve months.

Phase	Timing	Primary work	Cumulative	Decision gate
1. Validate	0–6 months	Localization; 20 design partners	$0.63m	12% paid conversion
2. Expand	7–18 months	Tokyo sales team; 5 resellers	$1.85m	$2.4m ARR
3. Establish	19–36 months	Osaka hub; enterprise channel	$3.84m	31-month payback

4.3 Principal Risks and Mitigations

• Security-review delay - localize the ISMS and SOC 2 evidence package before the first enterprise pilot and run partner diligence in parallel.

• Limited local proof - co-develop profession-specific templates with tax, legal, and consulting design partners.

Note: currency conversion uses the 30 June 2026 closing rate. Detailed base-case assumptions appear in Appendix C.

18 / 36

Use these sources to write a board-ready Japan market-entry report. Make it at least 30 pages, include investment and exit gates, and cite every external claim in footnotes.

I’ll normalize source dates and metric definitions first, then draft an eight-chapter decision paper around the board’s six key questions.

Read 214 pages of market research

Compared 12 competitors and 37 plans

Coded themes across 18 customer interviews

Done

Executive summary → market → customer → competition → strategy → financials → risk → decision

Mapped six board questions to supporting evidence

Removed 11 duplicate claims

Done

14 tables, 31 footnotes, 3 appendices

Applied heading styles, TOC, and table captions

Cross-checked amounts, units, and as-of dates

Done

Decision package

·Recommendation: stage entry through Tokyo and Osaka; target 35% partner-sourced revenue
·Investment: $3.84m cumulative over three years; 31-month base-case payback
·Exit gate: paid conversion below 8% or ARR below $0.9m at month twelve

Japan_SaaS_Market_Outlook_2026.pdf

Competitor_Pricing_Feature_Matrix.xlsx

Japan_Entity_Three_Year_Model.xlsx

Customer_Interview_Synthesis.docx

Market_Entry_Workshop_Notes.pptx

Complex Word documents, handled end to end.Complex Word documents, handled end to end.

Reviews complex contracts clause by clause

Reviews the agreement and its exhibits together

Shows the exact words that changed

Turns issues into a negotiation map

Reviews the agreement and its exhibits together

Shows the exact words that changed

Turns issues into a negotiation map

Builds long reports from structure to finish

Designs the argument before drafting

Keeps numbers tied to their sources

Finishes the Word document system

Designs the argument before drafting

Keeps numbers tied to their sources

Finishes the Word document system

Synthesizes many sources into one document

Finds evidence inside every file

Explains conflicts between sources

Connects conclusions to proof

Finds evidence inside every file

Explains conflicts between sources

Connects conclusions to proof

Review, accept, or reject every change

Compares original and revised language inline

Keeps the original until you approve

Explains why each revision exists

Compares original and revised language inline

Keeps the original until you approve

Explains why each revision exists

Frequently Asked Questions

Can inline AI work with our existing Word templates and styles?

Can it review long, heavily negotiated contracts?

Which source files can it use to build a Word document?

Can I review AI edits before they are applied?

Does Microsoft Word need to be installed?

From first draft to final review. Put Word documents in inline AI’s hands.

Turn your PC into an AI computer.

Complex Word documents, handled end to end.Complex Word documents, handled end to end.

Reviews complex contracts clause by clause

Reviews the agreement and its exhibits together

Shows the exact words that changed

Turns issues into a negotiation map

Reviews the agreement and its exhibits together

Shows the exact words that changed

Turns issues into a negotiation map

Builds long reports from structure to finish

Designs the argument before drafting

Keeps numbers tied to their sources

Finishes the Word document system

Designs the argument before drafting

Keeps numbers tied to their sources

Finishes the Word document system

Synthesizes many sources into one document

Finds evidence inside every file

Explains conflicts between sources

Connects conclusions to proof

Finds evidence inside every file

Explains conflicts between sources

Connects conclusions to proof

Review, accept, or reject every change

Compares original and revised language inline

Keeps the original until you approve

Explains why each revision exists

Compares original and revised language inline

Keeps the original until you approve

Explains why each revision exists

Frequently Asked Questions

Can inline AI work with our existing Word templates and styles?

Can it review long, heavily negotiated contracts?

Which source files can it use to build a Word document?

Can I review AI edits before they are applied?

Does Microsoft Word need to be installed?

From first draft to final review. Put Word documents in inline AI’s hands.