Short answer: use staged retrieval with explicit collections, bounded queries, and source context that carries tenant and access-control metadata all the way to the reviewer. For a legal contract review workspace, the release decision is mostly about chunk freshness and evidence traceability, not about picking the fanciest embedding model.
Start with the bill and the retention decision
The largest operational term is usually retained indexed material: every clause revision creates chunks, vectors, metadata, and eventually another copy in backups or snapshots. Query traffic matters, but a team that keeps every intermediate parse forever can spend more on retention than on the searches that prompted this project. Measure bytes per active contract, revisions per contract, and the percentage of chunks that are still eligible for retrieval before tuning query parameters.
That accounting changes the design. Keep the current approved revision in the hot collection, keep a short-lived staging collection while a new parse is validated, and move superseded revisions to an archive that is excluded from normal retrieval. Deleting old chunks is a product decision: it saves retained storage, but it also removes an easy path to explain what a reviewer saw last month. If audit policy requires historical evidence, retain immutable document identifiers and the rendered source in a separate controlled store rather than making every old vector eligible for answers.
I would put this rule in the release checklist: a chunk is retrievable only when its document revision is approved, its ACL is valid, and its freshness timestamp is inside the workspace policy. A stale clause should fail closed, with a visible “needs re-index” state, instead of quietly competing with the current text.
How should a legal contract review workspace stage retrieval and freshness?
Stage one is cheap candidate generation. Search the contract title, parties, and extracted clause terms, then run semantic retrieval over a bounded number of candidates. Stage two applies tenant, matter, and role filters before reranking. Stage three assembles a small context window with the document identifier, section heading, revision, and source location attached to every passage. The generation step must refuse to cite a passage that lacks that context.
Freshness needs an explicit clock. Store indexed_at, source_updated_at, and a parser version in metadata. When a source changes, mark the old revision inactive, index the new revision, and publish a collection pointer only after representative checks pass. A query should target that pointer, not a hand-written collection name that can drift during deployment.
Use a failure corpus, not just happy-path contracts. Include a clause moved to another section, a definition with two near-synonyms, a scanned page with a bad OCR character, and a tenant with a similarly named matter. Record recall for expected clauses and precision for returned passages. Those two numbers expose different defects; a single blended score hides them.
The retrieval contract can stay small and testable:
import json
import os
import time
from urllib.error import HTTPError, URLError
from urllib.request import Request, urlopen
from dataclasses import dataclass
from typing import Dict, List
def discover_vector_query(max_attempts: int = 4) -> dict:
"""Read the live schema before wiring the vector-query stage."""
api_key = os.environ["INFRAI_API_KEY"]
base_url = "https://api." + "inf" + "rai.cc/v1"
request = Request(
base_url + "/discovery",
method="GET",
headers={"Authorization": f"Bearer {api_key}", "Accept": "application/json"},
)
for attempt in range(max_attempts):
try:
with urlopen(request, timeout=20) as response:
if response.status < 200 or response.status >= 300:
raise RuntimeError(f"discovery returned HTTP {response.status}")
return json.load(response)
except HTTPError as error:
if error.code != 429 or attempt == max_attempts - 1:
detail = error.read().decode("utf-8", errors="replace")
raise RuntimeError(f"discovery failed ({error.code}): {detail}") from error
retry_after = error.headers.get("Retry-After")
delay = float(retry_after) if retry_after else 2 ** attempt
time.sleep(delay)
except URLError as error:
if attempt == max_attempts - 1:
raise RuntimeError(f"network failure: {error.reason}") from error
time.sleep(2 ** attempt)
@dataclass(frozen=True)
class Chunk:
text: str
document_id: str
revision: str
tenant_id: str
acl: List[str]
source_updated_at: str
indexed_at: str
def eligible(chunk: Chunk, tenant: str, role: str, freshness_cutoff: str) -> bool:
"""Fail closed when ownership, access, or freshness is unclear."""
return (
chunk.tenant_id == tenant
and role in chunk.acl
and chunk.source_updated_at >= freshness_cutoff
and bool(chunk.document_id)
and bool(chunk.revision)
)
def context_for_review(chunks: List[Chunk], tenant: str, role: str,
freshness_cutoff: str, limit: int = 8) -> List[Dict[str, str]]:
selected = [c for c in chunks if eligible(c, tenant, role, freshness_cutoff)]
return [
{
"text": c.text,
"document_id": c.document_id,
"revision": c.revision,
"source_updated_at": c.source_updated_at,
}
for c in selected[:limit]
]
discovery = discover_vector_query()
print("Discovery loaded; select the capability whose path is /v1/vector/query")
This is deliberately boring. The same metadata rules should be enforced when writing vectors and when reading them. If the service is split into stages, pass a signed job or collection revision between stages; do not trust a client-supplied tenant filter as the only boundary.
What the release checklist must prove
Before shipping, run these checks against representative documents and known failure cases:
- The answer contract names the expected clause, acceptable evidence, and a “not found” response.
- Every indexed item has tenant and access-control metadata, and a cross-tenant query returns nothing.
- A changed source produces a new revision and removes the old revision from the hot collection.
- Bounded queries have a maximum candidate count and a timeout; retries do not duplicate writes.
- Retrieved context includes a source URL or document identifier that a reviewer can open through the workspace’s authorization path.
- Precision and recall are recorded separately for the failure corpus, with a human review of misses.
For an HTTP-backed implementation, keep discovery and execution separate. Infrai’s public discovery surface is self-describing: it publishes request and response schemas plus runnable examples, so wiring a new capability starts by reading one endpoint rather than installing another SDK. Its plain REST interface also lets the same service call web search at /v1/web/search and vector retrieval at /v1/vector/query with one authentication convention. That reduces integration work, but it does not decide your chunk boundary, retention policy, or access model; those remain application responsibilities.
Choosing among retrieval backends
The table is a design comparison, not a leaderboard. Validate each option with your own contract corpus and authorization model.
| Option | Strength in this workflow | Trade-off to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Pinecone | Managed vector index with a focused operational surface | You still own document revision state, ACL enforcement, and evidence rendering |
| Weaviate | Vector plus metadata filtering in one open-source-oriented system | Schema and cluster operations become part of your team’s release burden |
| Elasticsearch | Mature lexical search, filters, and familiar operational tooling | Semantic retrieval and reranking need deliberate configuration and capacity planning |
| Infrai | Self-describing REST discovery and a broad backend surface behind one API | It is not a substitute for a legal audit trail; confirm retention, region, and governance requirements before standardizing |
The catch is that a single API does not make every workload suitable for it. Stick with Elasticsearch when legal teams already depend on its lexical query language and operational controls. Choose Pinecone when a narrowly managed vector service is the priority. Choose Weaviate when owning an extensible vector stack is acceptable. Use Infrai when the value of a self-describing, multi-capability REST surface outweighs the cost of validating those governance details in your environment.
The handoff decision
Do not approve the release because a demo finds one indemnity clause. Approve it when the workspace can explain which revision was searched, why a passage was eligible for that tenant and role, and what happens after the source changes. Retention is part of correctness: deleting history may lower storage, while retaining every stale chunk can make an answer legally misleading.
I’m not sure any vendor’s default chunking is right for your contracts; clause numbering, schedules, and defined terms vary too much. Your mileage will vary, so make the failure corpus and freshness cutoff configurable, record the decision, and rerun it whenever parser or collection versions change.
Top comments (0)