Regional annexures
What this page is — the capability that works out which regional annexures, riders and addenda a cross-border document needs across the parties' jurisdictions, and drafts them.
What it is for — because a contract signed across two countries usually needs paperwork in both, and nobody knows every jurisdiction's expectations by heart.
The problem it solves — cross-border documents go out without the local riders a jurisdiction expects, and the gap is found in a dispute.
Route: /org/papers/documents/<document>/ai → Comply → Regional annexures ·
Permission: Use AI drafting/extraction/Q&A for documents. ·
Utility: papers_annexure_gen · Cost: 450 credits estimated, 1,800 maximum.
1. What it is
Each jurisdiction tends to expect its own annexures — state tax schedules, data-protection riders, local labour-law addenda. This reads your document, weighs it against the jurisdictions of the parties, and drafts the annexures commonly required or market-expected there.
Four properties define the output:
- It only proposes annexures genuinely tied to those jurisdictions. No padding.
- It marks each
mandatoryor optional — legally required against market-expected. - It gives the reason each one applies, in one sentence.
- It flags statutory references it is not fully confident about, so a reviewer knows where to look rather than trusting the whole draft equally.
It is one of the few capabilities that produces draftable output rather than analysis: each annexure comes back as a clean HTML fragment ready to review and attach.
Regional annexures is one of three capabilities that may need an input before running — but unlike the other two it is optional. It reads the document's own governing-law, jurisdiction, region and country fields, and asks only when the document names none. A document that already says where it applies runs on a single press.
The other two are Compromise draft, which always requires both positions, and Redline grade, which always requires the redline.
2. Why you would use it
Cross-border paperwork fails quietly. The agreement is signed, everyone is satisfied, and eleven months later an invoice is rejected because it carries no HSN codes and no place of supply.
- It surfaces the annexure you did not know existed. This is not a memory aid for a specialist — it is the only practical way for a non-specialist to discover that a jurisdiction expects something.
mandatoryseparates the legal from the customary. Two very different conversations: one is a compliance requirement, the other a negotiation about market practice.- A draft beats a checklist. Being told you need a GST tax schedule is useful; being handed one to review is an afternoon saved.
review_notestells you where to be sceptical. Statutory references, rates and code lists change; the tool names the ones it is unsure about instead of presenting everything with equal confidence.- It scales across a portfolio. An organisation signing in six jurisdictions cannot hold six sets of expectations in one person's head.
3. What you provide
| Input | Required | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Party jurisdictions | Asked when the document names none | Where each party sits — include state or province |
| Document type | Usually read from the document | What the document is. Drives which annexures are expected |
| Document text | Supplied automatically when a document is open | Otherwise typed or pasted |
Party jurisdictions — examples:
| Example | Note |
|---|---|
India (Maharashtra), Singapore | State named — sharper results |
India (Karnataka), United Kingdom | Different state, materially different annexures |
Many annexures are state-level, not national. India alone gets you the national expectations;
India (Maharashtra) gets you the state tax schedule that actually applies. This single detail
changes the relevance of the output more than anything else you can control.
4. What it reads automatically
| Situation | What is added |
|---|---|
| A document is open | The document's text is supplied as the document text, so you need not paste it. Its governing-law, jurisdiction, region and country fields are read to infer the jurisdictions |
| No document open | Nothing. It works from the jurisdictions, type and text you type |
5. What you get back
annexures[] — the applicable annexures.
| Field | Type | Values | Means |
|---|---|---|---|
title | string | — | The annexure's name |
jurisdiction | string | — | Which jurisdiction it belongs to |
reason | string, one sentence | — | Why it is required |
body_html | HTML fragment | — | The drafted annexure — paragraphs, headings, lists and tables |
mandatory | boolean | — | true if legally required; false if market-expected but optional |
Plus review_notes — an overall note: that every annexure is a draft for approver review, plus
any statutory references to double-check.
6. Worked example
An MSA is being signed between an Indian entity in Maharashtra and a Singapore counterparty.
Input: party jurisdictions = India (Maharashtra), Singapore; document type = Master Services Agreement; text supplied from the open document.
One of the annexures returned:
title: "Annexure A — GST Tax Schedule (India)" jurisdiction: "India (Maharashtra)" reason: "Indian-supplied services require a GST schedule stating rate, HSN/SAC codes and place of supply for compliant invoicing." mandatory:
truebody_html: (a drafted schedule with rate, HSN/SAC and place-of-supply table)
What the team does with it. mandatory: true makes this a compliance item rather than a
negotiating point — the annexure is attached, not discussed. The reason names the three things the
schedule must state, so the reviewer knows what to check the draft contains.
review_notes on the same run flagged the GST rate as a figure to verify against current
notification, which is exactly right: the structure of the schedule is stable, the rate is not.
The Singapore side produced one further annexure, mandatory: false — market-expected rather than
required. That one went to the counterparty as a proposal.
7. Running it
- Open the document (or open the tool and paste the text).
- Open the AI Assistant drawer, or go to the document's AI workspace.
- Choose Regional annexures under Comply.
- Enter the party jurisdictions and the document type, if the document does not supply them.
- The applicable annexures come back as drafts, with review notes.
- Route each draft to the right approver before attaching it.
Statutory references, rates and code lists change. Send each annexure to the approver responsible for that jurisdiction — tax, data-protection, employment — and verify any cited statute before attaching it. Nothing here is attached to the document automatically.
Available for auto-run from the type's AI Config tab. on_submit gives whoever reviews the
document a jurisdiction checklist alongside it. See AI configuration.
8. The admin contract
| Must be true | Where | What happens if it is not |
|---|---|---|
| Your role holds Use AI drafting/extraction/Q&A for documents. | Role editor | The AI Assistant button does not appear |
The papers_annexure_gen utility is active | Orbit AI Flow → utilities | "This utility is currently disabled" |
| The utility is enabled for your organisation | /org/ai-utilities | Absent from Comply, with no error |
papers.ai_monthly_credit_cap not yet reached | System Config | "monthly AI credit cap reached: n of n credits used this month" |
| The type carries governing-law / jurisdiction fields | Field schema | Jurisdictions cannot be inferred and must be typed on every run |
| Approvers exist per jurisdiction | Your process | Drafts have nowhere qualified to go, and get attached unreviewed — the failure this capability most invites |
For a confidential document, auto-run is default-denied — a platform administrator must set
papers.ai_confidential_cloud to the literal allow, and the block appears only in the server log.
A manual press still works, and where a local model key is configured the run is forced on-prem and
audited on the timeline as ai_local_routed.
9. Don't confuse this with…
| Adapt to jurisdiction | Rewrites the whole document for another jurisdiction. Not currently offered — see the capabilities reference |
| Regulatory drift | Finds wording that has fallen behind current regulation. This adds documents that are missing |
| Compliance & policy check | Audits against your policy. This works from jurisdictional expectation |
| The clause library | Your approved standing wording. This drafts jurisdiction-specific new material |
10. Troubleshooting
| Symptom | Cause |
|---|---|
| It asked for jurisdictions | The document names none in its governing-law or country fields (§1) |
| The annexures are national, not state-level | You gave a country without a state. Name the province (§3) |
| Nothing came back | Both parties are in the same jurisdiction, so no regional annexure applies |
| A cited statute looks out of date | Read review_notes — it flags references it is unsure about (§5) |
| The annexure was not attached to the document | It never is. Attaching is a human step after approval (§7) |
body_html will not paste cleanly | It is an HTML fragment of paragraphs, headings, lists and tables. Paste into a rich body, not a plain field |
| The capability is missing from Comply | Role lacks Use AI drafting/extraction/Q&A for documents., or the utility is off for the organisation (§8). The document type does not gate it — AI Config controls auto-run only |