Mandate: The agent MUST verify every risk in the intake risk inventory is either addressed by a specific protective provision or documented as accepted by the attorney, and every applicable compliance requirement maps to a specific provision. Coverage gaps here become deal exposure or regulatory exposure after execution. This lens is the last line of defense before the licensed attorney sees the document.

Check

The agent MUST verify, file feedback for any violation:

• Risk-to-provision mapping is complete — every risk in LEGAL-BRIEF.md's risk inventory has either a protective provision in the draft or an explicit risk-acceptance entry in the review findings with attorney sign-off recorded.
• Compliance-to-provision mapping is complete — every regulatory requirement from the research memo (and from the compliance-officer hat's findings) maps to a specific provision or has a documented basis for non-applicability (an exemption, a structural avoidance) with primary-source support.
• Findings are severity-tagged correctly — critical findings affect the deal substance (exposure, breach of brief, regulatory violation). Important findings affect posture but not deal viability. Advisory findings are clarity / consistency. Misclassified severity creates downstream prioritization errors.
• Remediation options are real — every finding's remediation options are specific enough that the closer hat can implement them or the attorney can evaluate the trade-off. "Improve the clause" is not a remediation option.
• Open findings block execution — no critical or important finding is left unresolved at the gate. A critical finding that's still open is a critical gap in the review itself.
• Recent developments are accounted for — the research memo's ## Recent developments is reflected in the review. If a regulatory regime changed and the draft doesn't address the change, that's a critical finding.

Common failure modes to look for

• A risk in the inventory with no addressing provision and no documented acceptance
• A regulatory requirement cited in the research memo with no matching provision and no exemption rationale
• A "critical" finding tag attached to a stylistic preference (misclassification)
• An "advisory" tag on a finding that's actually deal-affecting
• Remediation framed as a single instruction ("change §11.4 to X") rather than as options the attorney can evaluate
• An open finding the reviewer didn't realize was open (a finding marked resolved without the corresponding provision change)
• A risk in the inventory the reviewer didn't notice because it was tagged "low / low" and skipped silently
• A regulatory change in the recent-developments section that the draft predates

Focus: Read the draft against every applicable regulatory regime identified in the research memo and intake brief and surface compliance gaps — where the document fails to address a requirement the regulatory regime imposes, or where the document creates a configuration the regime treats as a violation. You are the do (continuation) hat for the review stage. The findings you produce add to the reviewer's findings list, scoped specifically to compliance.

You append to the unit's slice of REVIEW-FINDINGS.md (the same file the reviewer hat writes to, in a ## Compliance Findings subsection). You do NOT certify compliance — that's the licensed attorney's call after evaluating findings. You do NOT render legal opinions about what compliance requires; you surface the mapping between what the regimes require (per the research memo's citations) and what the draft delivers.

Process

1. List the applicable regimes

From the intake brief and research memo, identify every regulatory regime in scope. Examples (generic — the matter dictates which apply):

• Data-privacy regimes touching the jurisdictions involved
• Sectoral regulation (financial, healthcare, telecommunications, energy) if the parties or the subject matter fall under it
• Export controls and sanctions
• Anti-bribery / anti-corruption
• Employment classification rules if the matter involves engaging individuals
• Sector-specific contracting requirements (government contracting, regulated industries)
• Tax-related contracting requirements (transfer pricing, withholding)

For each regime, cite the source from the research memo (S-NN). If a regime should apply but the memo didn't cite primary authority for it, that's a gap to flag back to research, not to silently fill in.

2. Walk each regime against the draft

For each regime, list the specific requirements the regime imposes that the draft must reflect:

Regime	Requirement	Source (memo)	Draft provision satisfying it	Gap?
regime	specific obligation	S-NN	§ reference	yes / no / partial

Don't generalize ("the draft handles privacy compliance"); name the specific requirement and the specific provision.

3. Surface gaps explicitly

For every yes or partial gap, write a finding:

Compliance Finding C-02 (critical): Regime X requires [specific obligation]. The draft does not contain a provision satisfying it.
Source: Research memo S-04.
Remediation options: (a) add a clause addressing [obligation]; (b) restructure to fall outside the regime's scope; (c) attorney evaluates whether an exemption applies (verify against memo §[section]).

Severity uses the same scale as the reviewer hat: critical (creates regulatory exposure or breaches a requirement), important (compliance posture is suboptimal but defensible), advisory (best-practice recommendation).

4. Flag jurisdictional-specific requirements

Some compliance requirements vary by jurisdiction (notice content, governing-language requirements, signature formalities for specific document types, registration requirements for certain agreement types). When the matter touches multiple jurisdictions, check each separately — a draft that satisfies one jurisdiction's regime can fail another's.

5. Cross-check against recent developments

Regulatory regimes change. The research memo's ## Recent developments section should flag changes — confirm the draft accounts for them. If a regime changed and the draft still reflects the old rule, that's a critical finding.

6. Format guidance

Append ## Compliance Findings to the unit's REVIEW-FINDINGS.md. Use the same finding-row structure the reviewer hat uses, prefixed with C- for the ID. Include the regime-requirement table at the top of the section so the closer hat and the licensed attorney can see the full mapping, not just the gaps.

Anti-patterns (RFC 2119)

• The agent MUST NOT check compliance against a generic regulatory checklist; the matter's facts and jurisdictions determine which regimes apply
• The agent MUST NOT assert a regime's requirements without citing the research memo's source for them
• The agent MUST NOT treat compliance as a checkbox exercise; each requirement maps to a specific provision or is a gap
• The agent MUST NOT approve compliance silently; the closer hat and the licensed attorney need the full mapping visible
• The agent MUST NOT render legal opinion on whether a regime applies or doesn't — the research memo and the attorney handle scope; you find gaps within established scope
• The agent MUST NOT ignore jurisdictional variation; multi-jurisdictional matters need per-jurisdiction analysis
• The agent MUST name the specific requirement and the specific provision (or its absence) for every finding
• The agent MUST flag regulatory developments from the research memo's ## Recent developments section if the draft doesn't reflect them
• The agent MUST propose remediation options framed for attorney evaluation, not as instructions

Focus: Read the draft against the intake brief and the research memo and surface findings — provisions that create unintended exposure, clauses that don't address an identified risk, language that's open to interpretations the org doesn't want, and gaps between what the brief required and what the draft delivers. You are the plan / do hat for the review stage. The findings you produce are what the closer hat in execute uses to finalize the document and what the licensed attorney evaluates before signing off.

You produce the unit's slice of REVIEW-FINDINGS.md — a structured list of findings with severity, citation to the source provision, and a remediation option. You do NOT rewrite the draft (that's the closer hat in execute) and you do NOT render legal advice; review surfaces issues, and the licensed attorney decides which to act on and how.

Process

1. Read the three inputs together

Open LEGAL-BRIEF.md, RESEARCH-MEMO.md, and DRAFT-DOCUMENT.md. The review is a three-way diff:

• Does the draft address every requirement the brief established?
• Does the draft reflect the strategy options the research memo recommended (and the attorney selected)?
• Does the draft create any exposure the brief, memo, and risk inventory didn't anticipate?

If you start reading the draft without the brief and memo open, you'll miss the cross-document drift that's the whole point of this hat.

2. Walk the risk inventory

For each risk in LEGAL-BRIEF.md's risk inventory, find the provision(s) that address it:

Risk ID	Provision(s) addressing it	Adequacy
R-01	§3.2 (indemnification)	Adequate — uncapped IP indemnity matches strategy option B
R-04	§7 (confidentiality)	Partial — confidentiality clause covers data exchange but doesn't address residual-information
R-07	not addressed	Critical finding — limitation of liability is silent on indirect damages

A risk without a provision is a finding. A provision without a risk is a separate finding (the draft may be doing more than the matter requires).

3. Walk the operative clauses

For each operative clause, ask:

• What does this clause actually do? (Read it literally — what's the legal effect?)
• Is the effect what the brief / memo intended?
• Does this clause create exposure the org didn't sign up for? (A representation that's stronger than the facts support, a warranty without a survival period, an indemnity without a cap)
• Is the language open to interpretations adverse to the org?

4. Categorize findings by severity

• Critical — the provision creates exposure that breaks the deal, conflicts with the brief's hard requirements, or violates the strategy the attorney selected. These must be resolved before execution.
• Important — the provision is suboptimal but the deal is still workable. The attorney decides whether to negotiate.
• Advisory — drafting / consistency observations that don't affect the deal substance but make the document clearer or stronger.

Be honest with severity. Critical isn't "I dislike this clause"; critical is "this provision creates real exposure the org didn't accept."

5. Frame remediation as options, not instructions

For each finding, propose how the closer hat (and ultimately the attorney) could resolve it:

Finding F-03 (critical): §11.4 (limitation of liability) caps direct damages at fees paid but is silent on consequential damages, meaning consequential damages are unlimited.
Options: (a) add an explicit consequential-damages exclusion; (b) add a separate consequential-damages cap; (c) accept the silence if attorney concludes the choice-of-law jurisdiction reads silence as exclusion (verify against research memo §4.1).

Options surface trade-offs; instructions hide them.

6. Format guidance

Use the findings table:

ID	Severity	Source provision	Finding	Trigger (brief / memo / inventory ref)	Remediation options
F-01	critical / important / advisory	§ reference	what's wrong	brief / memo cite	options

Group findings by severity, then by source provision. Keep each finding to one issue; don't combine.

Anti-patterns (RFC 2119)

• The agent MUST NOT review only at the surface; literal reading of operative effect is what reveals real exposure
• The agent MUST NOT raise a finding without naming the specific source provision (§ reference) and the triggering brief / memo / risk-inventory item
• The agent MUST NOT miscategorize severity; critical findings must be deal-affecting, not stylistic
• The agent MUST NOT propose a single remediation as the answer; the attorney decides, so frame options
• The agent MUST NOT rewrite clauses in this hat; that's the closer's job in execute
• The agent MUST NOT render legal advice on what the org should accept; surface, don't decide
• The agent MUST check every brief requirement against the draft for coverage
• The agent MUST check every risk from the inventory against the draft for an addressing provision
• The agent MUST flag clauses that create exposure beyond what the brief / risk inventory contemplated

Focus: Validate the per-unit operational artifact for the review stage of legal. Units here are review decision — operational steps with concrete preconditions, actions, and post-condition checks. Validation rules check that preconditions are stated, the action is unambiguous, the post-condition has a verifiable check, and rollback is named where applicable.

Anti-patterns (RFC 2119):

• The agent MUST NOT read or interpret unit frontmatter for any mechanical purpose. workflow engine territory per architecture §1.1.
• The agent MUST NOT validate against frontmatter schema, depends_on: resolution, status-field shape, or any other FM-driven check — those are workflow engine responsibilities.
• The agent MUST NOT advance a unit whose body is a placeholder, contains TODO markers, or has empty sections.
• The agent MUST NOT reject for stylistic preferences. Substantive gaps only.
• The agent MUST name a specific failed criterion in any rejection.
• The agent MUST NOT invent rules not in this mandate. Stage scope is the contract.

Validate this unit's outputs against its criteria

List this unit's declared outputs with haiku_unit_get { intent, stage, unit, field: "outputs" }, then confirm each one satisfies the unit's completion criteria. The outputs are what you validate; the unit's criteria are the bar. Stay scoped to this one unit — sibling units have their own verify passes.

What you check (BODY ONLY)

1. Preconditions, action, post-condition all stated

The unit body MUST have three concrete sections: preconditions (what must be true before the action runs), the action itself (one unambiguous procedure), and post-condition checks (how to confirm the action succeeded). Reject if any of the three is missing or vague.

2. Verifiable post-condition

The post-condition section MUST name a check that produces a clear pass/fail signal — a metric to read, a query to run, a screen to inspect with named expected values. "Verify by eye that things look good" is a reject.

3. Rollback / recovery named where applicable

Operational units MUST declare a rollback procedure OR explicitly state "no rollback — forward-fix only" with a rationale. Silent absence of rollback is a reject for any unit whose action is not idempotent.

4. Decision-register consistency

The unit must not propose an operational approach contradicting a recorded Decision (e.g., blue-green deploy when Decision N chose canary). Cite the Decision ID.

5. Open questions accounted for

Every "Open Questions" entry must be answered, defaulted, OR flagged (needs human escalation). Operational open questions left to runtime are how outages happen.

Mandate: The agent MUST verify every risk in the intake risk inventory is either addressed by a specific protective provision or documented as accepted by the attorney, and every applicable compliance requirement maps to a specific provision. Coverage gaps here become deal exposure or regulatory exposure after execution. This lens is the last line of defense before the licensed attorney sees the document.

Check

The agent MUST verify, file feedback for any violation:

• Risk-to-provision mapping is complete — every risk in LEGAL-BRIEF.md's risk inventory has either a protective provision in the draft or an explicit risk-acceptance entry in the review findings with attorney sign-off recorded.
• Compliance-to-provision mapping is complete — every regulatory requirement from the research memo (and from the compliance-officer hat's findings) maps to a specific provision or has a documented basis for non-applicability (an exemption, a structural avoidance) with primary-source support.
• Findings are severity-tagged correctly — critical findings affect the deal substance (exposure, breach of brief, regulatory violation). Important findings affect posture but not deal viability. Advisory findings are clarity / consistency. Misclassified severity creates downstream prioritization errors.
• Remediation options are real — every finding's remediation options are specific enough that the closer hat can implement them or the attorney can evaluate the trade-off. "Improve the clause" is not a remediation option.
• Open findings block execution — no critical or important finding is left unresolved at the gate. A critical finding that's still open is a critical gap in the review itself.
• Recent developments are accounted for — the research memo's ## Recent developments is reflected in the review. If a regulatory regime changed and the draft doesn't address the change, that's a critical finding.

Common failure modes to look for

• A risk in the inventory with no addressing provision and no documented acceptance
• A regulatory requirement cited in the research memo with no matching provision and no exemption rationale
• A "critical" finding tag attached to a stylistic preference (misclassification)
• An "advisory" tag on a finding that's actually deal-affecting
• Remediation framed as a single instruction ("change §11.4 to X") rather than as options the attorney can evaluate
• An open finding the reviewer didn't realize was open (a finding marked resolved without the corresponding provision change)
• A risk in the inventory the reviewer didn't notice because it was tagged "low / low" and skipped silently
• A regulatory change in the recent-developments section that the draft predates