Contract Drafting and Critical Review

Proof required

Complete contract draft with all clauses fully populated (no blanks), covering: parties and obligations, payment terms, IP ownership, liability limitation, termination, and dispute resolution — with a one-paragraph note on the jurisdiction whose law governs the contract and why.

What gets checked

• All clauses are fully populated — no 'TBD' or placeholder text in the final draft
• Limitation of liability clause is present and specifies the cap or exclusions — not just 'liability is limited'
• Governing law and jurisdiction are specified with a brief justification

Common mistakes

• Copying a contract template and changing the party names without engaging with the specific terms — each clause must be consciously selected for the specific transaction
• Omitting IP ownership provisions — this is the most commonly contested clause in services contracts and cannot be left to implication
• Using 'commercially reasonable efforts' or similar vague obligations without defining them — ambiguous obligations are the primary source of contract disputes

Powstik Guide

A complete contract draft with no blanks.

Steps

1. Name the parties and obligations.
2. Set payment and termination terms.
3. Fill every clause.
4. Get a qualified reviewer to check it.

Parties:
Obligations:
Payment:
Termination:
Other clauses:
Reviewed by:

What gets sent back

• Blank clauses.
• Template copied unchanged.
• Presented as legal advice.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check that all clauses are fully populated — no TBD or blank fields
• Review the limitation of liability clause — confirm it specifies a cap or specific exclusions
• Verify governing law and jurisdiction are specified

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Contract risk analysis (500+ words) identifying three specific high-risk clauses or gaps with the risk explained (who bears it, when it materialises), plus a proposed redraft of each clause or gap, with the source of the analysed contract cited.

What gets checked

• Three risks are identified with specific clause references — not general concerns about the contract
• Each risk explains who bears it and the scenario in which it materialises
• Proposed redraft addresses the identified risk specifically — not generic alternative language

Common mistakes

• Identifying risks that are obvious without engaging with the contract language — 'there is no IP clause' is an observation, not a risk analysis
• Analysing clauses in isolation without considering their interactions — a clause that looks protective in isolation may be voided by another clause
• Proposing generic replacement language rather than language tailored to the specific transaction — the redraft must be as specific as the identified risk

Powstik Guide

A 500-word risk analysis of three clauses in a real contract.

Steps

1. Pick a published real contract.
2. Find three high-risk clauses or gaps.
3. Explain each risk.
4. Suggest a redraft for each.

Contract (source):
| Clause | Risk | Suggested redraft |
|--------|------|-------------------|

What gets sent back

• Under 500 words.
• Fewer than three clauses.
• No source.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the analysed contract is a real publicly available contract — request the source citation
• Review the three risks — confirm each is referenced to a specific clause with the risk scenario explained
• Check proposed redrafts — confirm they address the identified risks specifically

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's legal credentials, at least three specific scenario-based challenges to the contract drafting, your responses, and at least one clause redraft committed to based on the session.

What gets checked

• Reviewer is a qualified lawyer with contract law experience in the relevant jurisdiction
• At least three scenario-based challenges are documented — not general drafting feedback
• At least one specific clause redraft is committed to based on the session

Common mistakes

• Presenting to a non-lawyer who approves the structure without challenging the legal effect of specific clauses
• Not being able to identify which clause would govern a given scenario — contract drafters must be able to navigate their own contracts under challenge
• Acknowledging a gap without committing to a specific redraft — recognising a problem is only halfway to demonstrating competency

Powstik Guide

Your contract, stress-tested with scenarios by a lawyer.

Steps

1. List three scenarios where the deal could go wrong.
2. For each, find the clause that would govern.
3. Book a qualified lawyer.
4. Ask them to add a failure scenario you missed.
5. Redraft at least one clause after the session.

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (a failure scenario):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

Clause redraft
Before:
After:

What gets sent back

• A non-lawyer reviewer.
• Not knowing which clause governs a scenario.
• A gap admitted but no redraft.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm the reviewer is a qualified lawyer with contract law experience
• Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three scenario-based challenges are documented
• Check that at least one specific clause redraft is committed to based on the session

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.