3. How to Build a Drafting Simulation on BeSavvy

This article explains a practical framework for designing a contract drafting simulator on BeSavvy.

For drafting, the most reliable structure is a three-step flow:

1. identify the problem through a client interview,
2. implement changes in the document, and
3. defend those changes in a negotiation-style discussion.

Start with a clear drafting use case

Drafting is too broad to train in one simulator. Your first design decision is to pick a narrow, recognisable scenario.

A good use case statement includes:

• Document type: NDA, services agreement, SaaS terms, share purchase agreement clause set, employment contract, data processing addendum, etc.
• Perspective: acting for customer/supplier; buyer/seller; employer/employee; landlord/tenant
• The “problem”: what the client is worried about (risk, cost, timing, liability, confidentiality, IP ownership, termination, regulatory exposure)
• Deliverable: amended mark-up + explanation/negotiation of key positions
• Success criteria: accuracy, prioritisation, clarity, commercial reasonableness, consistency across clauses

Example use case (copy/paste and edit):

“This simulation trains a junior lawyer to interview a client and then mark up a supplier’s standard services agreement to reflect the client’s risk appetite. The learner produces a clean set of amendments and then defends the key changes in a short negotiation with the counterparty (or a supervising partner).”

Keep the scenario tight: one document, a defined client objective, and a clear end deliverable.

Step 1: Problem identification via Client Interview (Conversation block)

Objective: teach the learner to identify what needs to be drafted by extracting facts and priorities – before they touch the document.

Block to use: Conversation → Type: Client interview

What this step should train

– Asking structured, purposeful questions (not generic “tell me more”)

– Separating:

• facts (what is happening),
• constraints (timing, budget, approvals),
• priorities (what the client cares about most),
• risk appetite (what they will and won’t accept)

– Translating business concerns into legal drafting targets

How to design the client interview

Give the client a realistic backstory and incomplete information. The learner should have to work for clarity.

Include:

• Client role and context (e.g., Head of Procurement at a scale-up)
• The commercial goal (e.g., sign in 10 days, launch a product)
• A few hidden issues the learner can uncover (e.g., use of subcontractors, sensitive data, IP created during the project, reliance on a key supplier)

Output of Step 1: a short, structured drafting brief the learner will use in Step 2, for example:

• Client objectives (3 bullets)
• Non-negotiables (3 bullets)
• Fallback positions (3 bullets)
• Red-flag issues to fix in the document (5 bullets)

This “brief” is what turns drafting into a disciplined workflow.

Step 2: Implement changes in the document (Document Editor block)

Objective: teach the learner to apply the brief to real contract language – making precise changes that are internally consistent.

Block to use: Document Editor

1. Provide either:

• a template (your starting document), or
• the other party’s draft (more realistic in practice)

2. Give the learner clear instructions:

• what to change,
• what outcome each change must achieve,
• how to balance risk vs commercial practicality.

Within the document, insert task prompts such as:

• “Update this clause to reflect the client’s requirement that…”
• “Add a limitation so this obligation only applies where…”
• “Make this consistent with the termination clause at section X.”

You are training the learner to:

• locate relevant provisions,
• choose an appropriate drafting technique,
• keep positions consistent across the agreement (definitions, liability regime, termination mechanics, IP provisions, etc.).

What to assess in Step 2

• Substance: did they fix the right risks?
• Drafting technique: did they use a workable mechanism (not just deleting everything)?
• Precision: are the edits clear and legally coherent?
• Consistency: no conflicts across clauses, defined terms used correctly
• Commercial realism: changes are defensible and proportionate

Output of Step 2: a marked-up document (and optionally a short rationale note for the key changes).

Step 3: Defend the changes (Negotiation Conversation block)

Objective: teach the learner to justify drafting positions and negotiate them credibly—either with the counterparty or internally with a partner.

Block to use: Conversation → Type: Negotiation

Two common variants (choose one)

1. External negotiation (counterparty). The counterparty pushes back on liability, IP, confidentiality, SLAs, termination, etc.
2. Internal negotiation (partner review). The partner challenges whether the positions are too aggressive, commercially unworkable, or inconsistent.

How to design the negotiation step

Give the other party (or partner) a clear agenda and realistic pushback:

• “We can’t accept unlimited indemnities.”
• “Our standard is caps at fees paid in 12 months.”
• “We don’t assign IP by default; we license it.”
• “We need the right to use subcontractors.”

Train the learner to respond with:

• the principle (why the client needs this),
• the risk framing (what happens if not),
• a fallback (alternative drafting or compromise),
• a trade (if we give X, we need Y)

Output of Step 3: an “agreed position” summary:

• accepted points,
• concessions made,
• open points,
• next drafting actions.

Connecting the three steps into one coherent simulator

A strong drafting simulation has continuity:

1. Client interview output becomes the learner’s drafting brief.
2. Drafting edits become the subject of the negotiation.
3. Negotiation outcomes lead to final drafting actions (optional final step: produce a clean version).

Practical design principles for drafting simulations

• One document, one client objective. Avoid multi-document scope in early versions.
• Teach “positions”, not perfection. Juniors need to learn what is market, what is aggressive, and what is unacceptable.
• Build in constraints. Time pressure, client sensitivity, and business trade-offs create realism.
• Use explicit evaluation criteria. Accuracy, clarity, consistency, risk allocation, and commercial reasonableness.
• Iterate fast. Run the simulation with 3-6 users and refine where they misinterpret tasks or over-edit.