Extracted is not confirmed

The in-product wording from the plan is exact: 'Suggested from the document. Review before using this for monitoring.' That sentence is not a hedge for style. It is the boundary between software proposing a fact and a person accepting responsibility for using it operationally.

In SOW-S1, the software can suggest the initial term end and the 60-day notice wording. It can show the source excerpt. It still cannot know whether the team has the right signed version, whether the notice method matters, or whether the reader agrees with the interpretation.

The excerpt proves that matching words were found in a source version. It does not prove that the clause governs over another source, that the arithmetic convention is correct, or that the notice would be legally effective. A field can be source-backed and still require review.

That is why the sample keeps notice method and recipient in needs review. The wording exists, but the product should not turn it into a monitored rule until an authorised person checks the implication.

Once Maya confirms the current rule, owner and source, deterministic reminders can run from that confirmed state. If Amendment A1 later changes the notice period, the prior schedule remains visible until the amendment's effect is confirmed and supersedes the affected fields.

This is slower than pretending extraction is certainty. It is also clearer. Suggested, needs review, missing source and confirmed are different states because they allow different consequences.

This post does not give legal advice, validate any contract, or claim an accuracy percentage for extraction. It explains why the preview product treats document suggestions as inputs for review, not as confirmed monitored facts.