Skip to content
Sign In Try Free
Workflow-specific products Content, decks, briefs, proposals, legal, and sales each have a clearer buying path.
Review before delivery Draft, edit, collaborate, approve, and export in the same workspace.
Security + procurement path Security policy, support, and Azure Marketplace buying are public.

Published specimens and dated workflow captures

Inspect the workspace and output before you choose a plan.

Open published Lex specimens and dated captures across document types and jurisdictions. These are seeded product specimens for evaluating structure and review workflow - not customer results, approved templates, or documents ready for execution.

The captures begin after structured intake. Use the product tour to see the intake-to-review sequence, and verify every draft with qualified counsel before use.

Three agreements Lex drafted from a stated intake

Lex drafted each agreement on 3 October 2026 from the intake shown (parties, kind, governing law, term and confidentiality period) and exported it as a PDF and a Word file without editing. The parties, people and addresses are invented, and the first page of every agreement says so. They are specimens, not legal documents.

The first page of the consulting agreement Lex drafted: the title, the worked-example notice, the parties and the recitals.
A later page of the consulting agreement: numbered clauses for the services, deliverables, exclusions, client dependencies and fees and payment.

Consulting agreement · 8-page PDF · 1,860 words

Consulting Agreement: repairs satisfaction measurement (worked example)

A consulting agreement of 26 numbered clauses between two invented parties: scope, services, deliverables, exclusions, fees and expenses, intellectual property, confidentiality, liability, termination, notices, governing law and signature blocks. Its first page says the parties, people and addresses are invented and that it is a worked example, not a legal document.

The intake Lex was given

Draft a Consulting Agreement: repairs satisfaction measurement between Larkfield Analytics Ltd (Consultant) and Harbourside Housing Association (Client). Governing law: England and Wales. Effective date: 2027-02-01. Term: Ten weeks from the effective date. Confidentiality: Three years after the engagement ends. The Consultant will review the Client's current repairs satisfaction survey and the data behind it, recommend a method for measuring repairs satisfaction by contractor, and leave the Client with a reporting approach that the repairs team and the board can use. Excluded: building or buying software, and running surveys. Dependencies: the Client provides the survey data within five working days of the effective date and two days a week of its operations manager's time. State on the first page that the parties, people and addresses in this agreement are invented and that it is a worked example, not a legal document. Keep the agreement short and plain. The notice email address of Larkfield Analytics Ltd is notices@larkfield-analytics.example and of Harbourside Housing Association is notices@harbourside-housing.example (both invented).

PDF (267 KB)Word (11 KB)

Read mechanically against the intake, not by a lawyer: all 12 facts the intake gave (names, registration numbers, addresses, representatives, the effective date and the governing law) are in the draft, nothing is left as a placeholder, and it states two terms the intake did not give, 30 days and 10 business days, which Lex chose.

The first page of the master services agreement Lex drafted: the title, the worked-example notice, the parties and the first clauses.

Master services agreement · 11-page PDF · 2,876 words

Master Services Agreement: analytics services (worked example)

A master services agreement of 17 numbered parts: definitions, scope of services, service levels and change orders, fees, intellectual property, confidentiality, data protection, warranties, indemnification, limitation of liability, force majeure, term and termination, transition assistance, governing law, general provisions and schedules. Its first page says it is a worked example, not a legal document.

The intake Lex was given

Draft a Master Services Agreement: analytics services between Larkfield Analytics Ltd (Supplier) and Harbourside Housing Association (Customer). Governing law: England and Wales. Effective date: 2027-02-01. Term: Two years from the effective date, renewable by written agreement. Confidentiality: Five years after the agreement ends. The Supplier provides survey design, data engineering and dashboard services to the Customer under statements of work agreed in writing. Excluded: any service not set out in a signed statement of work. Dependencies: the Customer provides access to its systems and a named contact for each statement of work. State on the first page that the parties, people and addresses in this agreement are invented and that it is a worked example, not a legal document. The notice email address of Larkfield Analytics Ltd is notices@larkfield-analytics.example and of Harbourside Housing Association is notices@harbourside-housing.example (both invented).

PDF (287 KB)Word (13 KB)

Read mechanically against the intake, not by a lawyer: 10 of the 12 facts the intake gave are in the draft (the two registration numbers are not printed), nothing is left as a placeholder, and it states two terms the intake did not give, 30 days and 10 Business Days, which Lex chose.

The first page of the mutual non-disclosure agreement Lex drafted: the title, the worked-example notice, the parties and the first definitions.

Mutual NDA · 7-page PDF · 1,592 words

Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (worked example)

A mutual non-disclosure agreement of 14 numbered clauses between two invented parties: definitions, what counts as confidential information, exclusions, the receiving party's obligations, permitted disclosures, return of materials, remedies, term, survival, governing law, notices and signature blocks. Its first page says it is a worked example, not a legal document.

The intake Lex was given

Draft a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement between Larkfield Analytics Ltd (Party A) and Fenwick & Dale Stores Ltd (Party B). Governing law: England and Wales. Effective date: 2027-01-15. Term: Two years from the effective date. Confidentiality: Three years after disclosure. A mutual agreement: each party may disclose and receive confidential information. State on the first page that the parties, people and addresses in this agreement are invented and that it is a worked example, not a legal document. The notice email address of Larkfield Analytics Ltd is notices@larkfield-analytics.example and of Fenwick & Dale Stores Ltd is notices@fenwick-dale.example (both invented).

PDF (261 KB)Word (11 KB)

Read mechanically against the intake, not by a lawyer: all 12 facts the intake gave are in the draft, nothing is left as a placeholder, and it states no term the intake did not give.

Each draft was read mechanically against its intake, not by a lawyer. Verify every draft with qualified counsel before use.

Published specimens and dated captures

Open any image at full size to inspect the document workspace, section structure, and visible review panel. A jurisdiction label describes the seeded example; it is not a claim that Lex validates current local law.

Gixo Lex product capture of a Delaware mutual NDA with deterministic Draft Checks Mutual NDA - Delaware, US Confidentiality draft with the working document and Draft Checks visible.Current Gixo Lex agreement-pack workspace with Draft Checks beside the draft Master Services Agreement - current workspace Services framework specimen for evaluating section structure and review handoff.Gixo Lex product capture of an India-governed master services agreement Master Services Agreement - India A second MSA context for inspecting the same workspace against different seeded governing inputs.Gixo Lex product capture of a Singapore NDA with the Draft Checks panel NDA - Singapore Confidentiality specimen showing the document and review surface after structured intake.Gixo Lex product capture of an England and Wales consulting agreement Consulting Agreement - England and Wales Consulting-work specimen with structured document sections and checks.Gixo Lex product capture of a France employment agreement Employment Agreement - France Employment specimen for evaluating document hierarchy and remaining review items.Gixo Lex product capture of a Germany technology license agreement Technology License - Germany License specimen showing a complete document in the legal workspace.Gixo Lex product capture of a Japan intellectual property assignment IP Assignment - Japan Assignment specimen with the generated draft and review panel presented together.Gixo Lex product capture of a Netherlands privacy policy draft Privacy Policy - Netherlands Policy specimen for inspecting structure; not evidence of GDPR or other legal compliance.Gixo Lex product capture of a New South Wales statement of work Statement of Work - New South Wales Project-scope specimen for evaluating deliverable, milestone, and review structure.Gixo Lex product capture of an Ontario service level agreement Service Level Agreement - Ontario Service-level specimen showing the post-generation workspace and checks.Gixo Lex product capture of Brazil terms and conditions Terms and Conditions - Brazil Terms specimen for evaluating information hierarchy, not a reusable policy template.Gixo Lex product capture of a South Africa lease agreement Lease Agreement - South Africa Lease specimen demonstrating the document workspace after seeded intake.Gixo Lex product capture of a Dubai memorandum of understanding Memorandum of Understanding - Dubai Collaboration specimen for evaluating draft structure and reviewer handoff.

Evaluation checklist

What the proof establishes - and what it does not.

Established

A structured working document exists.

The captures and recording show a legal workspace with full-document output and a Draft Checks panel attached to the draft.

Evaluate

Can your reviewer find and resolve the remaining work?

Use a trial to inspect intake quality, placeholders, clause coverage, comments, revisions, and exported handoff with your own safe test matter.

Most captures here were taken in July 2026, before Lex added playbook review with tracked-change DOCX redlines, Agreement Packs, simple electronic signature, obligation reminders, and Matters. See what Lex added since

Not established

No specimen proves legal correctness or a customer outcome.

Lex does not show clause-level source provenance, certify compliance, or decide whether a draft is enforceable. Qualified review remains required.

Inspect the current read-only checks

Captured 10 October 2026 with an imported fictional NDA. These images show the available read-only checks; editing and reviewer decisions require Lex access.

Fictional NDA beside the actual Lex read-only issue worklist and filters, with its editing-access boundary visible
A fictional NDA in Lex's read-only contract review. Rule-based findings and filters stay beside the document; editing and reviewer decisions require Lex access.
Expanded unused-term finding with its reported passage, document location, rule and disabled review-decision controls
Inspect the reported passage, document location and rule behind a finding. Decision controls are read-only here; qualified counsel still assesses the issue.

Inspect clause editing, Ask and saved comparisons

Captured 10 October 2026 with a fictional sample and local editing access. Inspect the controls and manual changes; Ask instructions remain unsubmitted. Open any image to inspect it at full size.

Enter Review mode to inspect the fictional NDA with its draft body read-only. Review decisions remain explicit actions; the open findings still need qualified review.
Enter Review mode to inspect the fictional NDA with its draft body read-only. Review decisions remain explicit actions; the open findings still need qualified review.
Review a manual proposal to replace “under” with “pursuant to” in the Intellectual Property clause. Validate passed its structural check and left saved version 2 unchanged; Apply remains a separate decision.
Review a manual proposal to replace “under” with “pursuant to” in the Intellectual Property clause. Validate passed its structural check and left saved version 2 unchanged; Apply remains a separate decision.
Choose a clause and prepare a bounded Ask Lex instruction. This request is unsubmitted, so the image shows no returned or staged AI wording.
Choose a clause and prepare a bounded Ask Lex instruction. This request is unsubmitted, so the image shows no returned or staged AI wording.
Compare genuine saved versions 1 and 2 after manually changing “by” to “under” in the Intellectual Property clause. The comparison is a record of wording changes, not legal approval.
Compare genuine saved versions 1 and 2 after manually changing “by” to “under” in the Intellectual Property clause. The comparison is a record of wording changes, not legal approval.
Choose output and document layout controls beside the quick PDF layout preview. These controls do not demonstrate a downloaded file or an original-format Word round trip.
Choose output and document layout controls beside the quick PDF layout preview. These controls do not demonstrate a downloaded file or an original-format Word round trip.

Structured first draft, accountable review

Test the workflow with your own matter context before you choose a plan.

Start the 14-day, no-card Lex trial to evaluate structured intake, drafting, deterministic Draft Checks, review, and export. Gixo prepares work for review; it does not provide legal advice, certify compliance, or replace professional judgment.

Current Lex workspace with Draft Checks, 74 clauses, and Agreement Pack on a consulting agreement
Current Lex UI: Draft Checks, playbooks, and Agreement Pack sit beside the draft — not a static specimen image.

Updated