Lease · example page 8
The tenancy is concluded for a fixed term until 31 December 2030.
2030Lease end
Illustrative evaluation method
What makes an answer verifiable?
A source alone is not enough. What matters is what it supports, which documents were reviewed and what remains unresolved.
Private preview: a proposed RAIVA evaluation method. No measured product results, vendor ranking or independent certification.
Review case
Three documents. One open question.
Until when is the anchor tenant at Lindenhof committed? This fictional example shows the evidence a review needs. The extracts are shortened; they do not replace a contract review.
Review note
The lease states a fixed lease end of 31 December 2030. This extract supports a statement about the lease, not the lease end that applies today.
Go to the extract2nd amendment · example page 2
The lease term is extended until 31 December 2033. The tenant may terminate once as of 31 December 2031.
2033Lease end
Review note
The 2nd amendment extends the lease until 31 December 2033, with a break option as of 31 December 2031. It is signed by the tenant only; its association with the lease, countersignature and validity require review.
Go to the extractAttachment · unreadable
Unresolved
Research scope
The attachment is unreadable. Its contents remain unreviewed; a complete review of the document set cannot be claimed.
Go to the extractUnresolved
No binding lease end can be derived. The amendment needs expert review and the missing attachment must be obtained.
Criteria
Six criteria you can test.
For a demo or your own evaluation: define the review action and expected evidence in advance. These criteria are a proposal, not measured results.
Source attribution
Review action
Open each reference to the original; compare the document, version and passage.
Expected evidence
The reference leads to the relevant passage in the correct document version.
Evidence support
Review action
Compare the claim directly with the passage, including limitations and conditions.
Expected evidence
The passage supports the claim; additional inferences are labelled separately.
Contradictions
Review action
Check the same question against the lease and amendment.
Expected evidence
Both statements remain visible; their validity is not decided without evidence.
Research scope
Review action
Compare the authorised document set with the documents actually considered.
Expected evidence
A record distinguishes reviewed, unprocessed and out-of-scope documents.
Missing information
Review action
Repeat the question with an unreadable or missing attachment.
Expected evidence
The gap is named; unsupported conclusions remain unresolved.
Permissions
Review action
Run the same question using two explicitly authorised test roles.
Expected evidence
Unauthorised content and sensitive metadata appear in neither the answer nor the source view.
Scoring
Evaluate without false precision.
Assess each criterion individually and explain the finding. No ratings for RAIVA or other products have been assigned here.
- Met
- All predefined requirements are supported by evidence.
- Partially met
- Some requirements are supported; remaining gaps are specifically documented.
- Not met
- A predefined requirement is demonstrably missed.
- Not tested
- There is no sufficient evaluation. Neither a positive nor a negative finding.
Illustrative evaluation method
A process you can repeat.
Define the document set
Record authorised documents, versions, test roles and known gaps.
Record expectations
Define questions, reference passages and acceptance criteria before testing.
Log the test
Save product and model versions, settings, time, questions and outputs. Define repetitions in advance.
Review independently
A second qualified person assesses the evidence using the same criteria. Record differences in judgement.
Disclose findings
Report individual findings, missing evaluations and dataset limitations together.
Questions for your demo
Bring these questions to the demo.
- Can I open every source at the specific passage?
- Which parts of the claim does the passage actually support?
- How are conflicting document versions handled?
- Which documents were not processed or considered?
- What happens when the required information is missing?
- Do answers, sources and records stay within my permissions?
Sources
Basis and limitations
Derived from documented RAIVA platform principles. These describe the approach and do not confirm the availability of individual features. The case and evaluation scheme are editorial examples.
Editorial review on
Next step
Evaluate the approach with your question.
Request a demo and agree on suitable documents, roles and evidence.