Current is a relationship, not a file
The terms that apply now are the provisions supported by the relevant document family, effective dates, entities and scope. They are not necessarily the terms in the last document uploaded or signed. A defensible answer identifies both the governing position and the evidence used to reach it.
Begin with the question: which service, entity, right or obligation is being reviewed, and for what date? Without that boundary, a search can return accurate excerpts that do not answer the operating question. Record the boundary alongside the answer so another reviewer can test it.
Connect the evidence before concluding
- 01Master agreement establishes the relationship.
- 02Order defines the product or transaction scope.
- 03Amendment changes specified provisions from an effective date.
- 04Current position retains unaffected terms and cites every relevant source.
Read amendments for what they change—and preserve
An amendment may replace a price schedule without replacing confidentiality, usage restrictions or notice provisions. Identify the exact clauses or schedules affected and the scope of the change. Keep preserved provisions connected to their original source. Avoid creating a single flattened summary that conceals how the answer was assembled.
Illustrative example: an order covers two services, and a later amendment changes pricing for one. The revised price may govern that service from its effective date, while the other service and unrelated terms remain under earlier records. This example is an operational review pattern, not a legal interpretation of any particular agreement.
Check: When a document was executed
Potential mismatch: Used as a substitute for when a change takes effect.
Check: When a provision starts, ends or applies retrospectively
Potential mismatch: A change is applied to the wrong invoice period.
Check: Entity, product, geography or transaction affected
Potential mismatch: A narrow amendment is applied to the entire relationship.
Expose gaps instead of filling them
Missing schedules, inconsistent entity names and uncertain supersession language should remain visible as unresolved records. Assign a reviewer and an evidence request. An answer that states its limits is more useful than an apparently complete answer built on assumptions.
Maintain change history so a reviewer can reconstruct the position at an earlier date as well as today. Store the source reference, relationship and reason for change. That history matters when an operating record was created before an amendment but reviewed after it.
Take context into the decision
LineageAI is PostSig’s shared foundation for entity resolution, relationship modeling, effective dates, scope and source evidence. CPM applies that context to commercial commitments and operating records; IRI connects investment records, ownership, rights and economics.
The final review still belongs to the authorized people and workflow. Ask whether the evidence supports the question, whether access is appropriate and what remains unknown. Current context should make those judgments inspectable rather than hide them behind a confident summary.