Thabo Mokoena, South Africa General Counsel, connects legal books and source material, project evidence and supervised AI agents. The tools help find and organise; a human remains accountable for judgment and approval.
Sorted by consequence and time pressure. A person remains accountable for legal and commercial decisions.
Candidate for document parsing, annotation and evidence links.
Standards and tools to structure project and infrastructure information.
Candidate to run approvals, reminders and long-running workflows.
Candidate tools for red-team tests, evaluation and traces.
These are candidate components, not installed integrations. Licences, dependencies, security and data residency need review before adoption.
The checker applies only the fictional sample policy below. It does not decide what any real company or contract permits.
Sample policy: agent cannot approve a variation; manager approval is capped at R500,000; above that, route to GC and finance. This is a product demonstration, not a real DOA.
A future project view could connect contract language, a site event, project model, notice, decision, payment and close-out evidence.
| Record | Current sample status | Evidence pointer | Next owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Site instruction · equipment-room relocation | Captured | Demo photo + instruction | Project Manager |
| Schedule effect | Not assessed | None linked | Planner |
| Cost substantiation | Missing | None linked | Commercial lead |
| Approval authority | Pending | Sample DOA v0.3 | GC + Finance |
Choose only the records the contractor authorises for this fictional recipient. This demo creates a downloadable sample index; it does not upload or verify documents.
A real evidence passport needs source verification, granular consent, expiry, correction and revocation controls, and careful protection of commercial and personal information.
A variation is discussed verbally at a project meeting. The current sample record has no written confirmation, cost impact or schedule assessment. What should happen first?
Learning scenario only. The correct response depends on the actual contract, project authority and facts. This is not an NEC clause interpretation.
| Candidate | Potential role | GC-specific work still required | Adoption note |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenContracts | Document parsing, annotation, evidence links | Jurisdiction-aware source graph and review rules | MIT-licensed project; verify dependencies and data handling |
| Docassemble | Guided intake and document assembly | GC templates, approval gates and local legal content | MIT-licensed project; evaluate a bounded workflow |
| Temporal | Durable deadlines, approvals and retries | Contract and DOA workflow definitions | MIT-licensed; adopt when workflows need durable execution |
| Promptfoo + Langfuse | AI testing, red teaming, traces and prompt evaluation | GC playbook tests, human review and incident response | MIT core/project licensing shown by project sources; verify feature scope |
| IfcOpenShell + OC4IDS | Construction model data and infrastructure project structure | Map evidence to project, contract, event and model identifiers | IfcOpenShell LGPL; OC4IDS is a data standard, not a turnkey app |
| PM4Py | Analyse process logs for bottlenecks and control deviations | Define meaningful legal/process indicators | AGPL-3.0 open-source version; isolate and review before SaaS adoption |
License labels are an initial screen, not a clearance opinion. Review exact versions, bundled dependencies, hosting and intended use before adopting code.