Begin with a bounded question
“Until when does the lease run?” sounds like a simple search. In fact, it includes at least two tasks: finding the statements and assessing their applicability. A retrieval system can help bring relevant passages together. But a date or file name alone cannot determine which agreement governs the specific case.
A helpful first working question is: which different lease end dates appear in the available documents for this unit? This separates research from final assessment. It allows a useful intermediate result even when important documents or information are still missing. The subsequent professional review then starts with visible findings rather than an answer that already appears settled.
Preserve versions and provenance
Record the title, version and page for each passage. Keep its connection to the property and question. Two similarly named contracts need not concern the same unit. An amendment may change only a limited part of an agreement. A newer file date initially says something about the file; it does not answer which agreement is substantively applicable.
Missing relationships should therefore remain visible in the working collection. If the amendment’s connection to the lease is unclear, record exactly that. An apparently orderly sequence of versions must not conceal this uncertainty. The labels v1 and v2 in the Lindenhof example identify fictional sources. By themselves, they do not establish an effective change.
Show the conflict side by side
A comparison should make both statements equally easy to check. Include the wording, source location and conditions surrounding each passage. Showing only “2030 versus 2033” is a useful starting point, but not a complete review. What else each passage governs and who signed it may be decisive: in the example, the amendment also introduces a break option, and only one contracting party signed it.
Avoid summaries that imply a priority no one has yet justified. The longer, newer or more clearly worded passage does not automatically win. The result can contain two findings side by side. In professional work, that is not a failure of research but an accurate description of current knowledge. The open question remains visible next to the result.
Lindenhof: lease v1, page 8, section 12: fixed term until 31 December 2030. 2nd amendment v2, page 2, section 1: extended until 31 December 2033, break option as of 31 December 2031; signed by the tenant only. The property manager reports by email “signed and returned”; no countersigned copy is in the data room. The result is therefore: two documented lease ends; applicable lease end open.
Prepare a specific clarification
A conflict can generate a targeted request. Does the amendment belong to this exact lease? Which provisions was it intended to change? Are all pages and any further appendices available? Is there a copy signed by both parties, or only an email claiming so? These are prompts for the responsible specialist, not a definitive list of legal requirements.
Also state which documents were outside the review. If correspondence is missing, it can be requested specifically instead of sending a generic request for “more information”. A useful clarification describes the conflict, names both sources and defines the missing addition. This makes it clear why the team has not yet adopted a lease end into WALT or a valuation.
Adopt a decision only after review
The handover can have four parts: recorded statements, sources, unresolved applicability and the responsible person. If an assessment is made later, add it as another step. It does not retroactively turn the original findings into a certain answer. Preserving this sequence helps other participants understand how the result developed.
By its own description, RAIVA as an evidence platform is geared towards making review steps traceable and contradictions visible. This example demonstrates that working logic using fictional data; it is neither legal advice nor evidence of autonomous contract review. People remain responsible for professional assessment and approval. Before a WALT calculation, a valuation or any other action, they must assess the governing material and the specific case. Until then, “applicability unresolved” is more precise and useful than an unjustified choice.
