agent split one limitation clause across two extracted clauses

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

LinkSquares clause search returning nothing for a clause that is visibly in the PDF means the clause is not in the search index: the document's AI extraction never completed, the OCR layer is missing or pending, or the clause type is not enabled for that agreement type. Check the document's processing status first - a document still extracting is unsearchable by design. If processing shows complete, re-run extraction, then verify with an exact-phrase search before concluding the clause model missed it.

The query

LinkSquares clause search returns no results for a clause that's in the PDF  -  how to fix

Use this when

• Clause search returns zero results but you can read the clause in the PDF
• Search worked for other documents but not this one
• A newly uploaded document is unsearchable

Not for

• Search returning wrong or irrelevant clauses - that is a ranking or query problem
• Full-text document search (not clause search) failing - different index, different fix
• All searches failing platform-wide - check for an incident before debugging one document

Steps

1. Check the document's processing status

Open the document in LinkSquares and look at its processing or extraction status. Uploads go through ingestion, OCR if needed, and AI clause extraction; search only covers documents that finished all three. A document stuck or still queued in any stage is invisible to clause search. Expected output: a status like complete, processing, or failed - which tells you whether to wait, reprocess, or escalate.

2. Re-run extraction if processing failed or stalled

Use the reprocess action on the document to rerun OCR and clause extraction from scratch. Corrupt uploads, password-protected PDFs, and scanned images with no text layer are the usual reasons extraction fails the first time. Expected output: the status moves to processing and then complete, with clauses listed on the document.

3. Search the exact clause phrase

Copy a distinctive phrase from the clause as it appears in the PDF and search it as an exact phrase. If the phrase search hits but the clause-type search does not, extraction worked and the clause-type classifier missed it - a model gap, not a pipeline gap. Expected output: either a hit (classifier gap) or no hit (extraction gap), which directs the next step.

4. Verify the clause type is enabled for the agreement type

Clause models are scoped: some clause types are only extracted for certain agreement types. Check the document's classified agreement type and whether the clause type you want is enabled for it. A misclassified agreement (e.g. an order form read as an NDA) hides whole clause categories. Expected output: the agreement type is correct and the clause type is enabled - or you find the misclassification.

Tool compatibility

LinkSquares Analyze (AI clause extraction and search). The ingestion-to-index pipeline is the same for all document sources.

Variant phrasings

• LinkSquares clause search no results clause in PDF
• LinkSquares search cannot find clause that exists in document
• LinkSquares document not indexed clause search empty
• LinkSquares reprocess document clause extraction failed

Why it happens

Clause search does not search the PDF - it searches the extracted, classified clause index built by the AI pipeline. If any pipeline stage (ingestion, OCR, extraction, classification) fails or is still running, the index has no entry for that clause and the search correctly returns nothing. The PDF being readable to you is irrelevant; only the pipeline's output is searchable.

Edge cases / pitfalls

• Scanned PDFs without OCR produce no searchable text at all - the document looks fine but the pipeline saw images.
• Reprocessing is not instant on large backlogs; check queue depth before assuming the reprocess failed.
• Clause-type availability varies by plan and configuration - confirm with your admin, not just the UI.
• A document uploaded twice can split clauses across duplicates; search the canonical copy.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_q98sL5mJK3yDB8HwyZv5NA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_q98sL5mJK3yDB8HwyZv5NA

Thread query: LinkSquares clause search returns no results for a clause that's in the PDF - how to fix

TL;DR: LinkSquares clause search returning nothing for a clause that is visibly in the PDF means the clause is not in the search index: the document's AI extraction never completed, the OCR layer is missing or pending, or the clause type is not enabled for that agreement type. Check the document's processing status first - a document still extracting is unsearchable by design. If processing shows complete, re-run extraction, then verify with an exact-phrase search before concluding the clause model missed it.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR: Switch the chunker from fixed character windows to sentence-aware or clause-aware splits with generous overlap, so no chunk starts or ends inside a sentence. Then re-index and spot-check retrieval on negation-heavy clauses like "shall not exceed". The fixed-size splitter had no idea where sentences end, so it sliced "shall not exceed" in half and the retriever handed the agent a fragment that reads like permission.

the agent's RAG chunking cut a sentence mid-clause  -  "shall not exceed" split into "shall" and "exceed" and the retriever returned only the "shall" half

1. Inspect where the current chunks break. Dump five chunks around a known clause boundary and check whether any chunk starts or ends mid-sentence. Expected: you find at least one chunk that begins or ends inside a sentence, confirming the splitter is the problem.
2. Replace the fixed-size splitter with a sentence-aware splitter (split on sentence boundaries first, then pack whole sentences into chunks up to the size limit). Set overlap to at least one full sentence or roughly 20 percent of the chunk size, whichever is larger. Expected: every chunk in the new index starts and ends on a sentence boundary.
3. For contracts specifically, prefer clause-aware splitting: split on section and subsection headings first, and never split inside a numbered clause. Keep definitions and the clause that references them in overlapping chunks when they sit close together. Expected: chunks line up with the document's own structure, so "shall not exceed" and its number always travel together.
4. Re-index the contract corpus and re-run the failing query. Check the retrieved chunks around the target clause. Expected: the retrieved chunk contains the complete sentence with its negation and numeric limit intact.
5. Add a regression check to the pipeline: a small set of negation clauses ("shall not", "may not", "exclusive of", "in no event") whose retrieval must return the full sentence. Run it after every re-index. Expected: the check fails loudly if a future chunking change reintroduces mid-sentence splits.

Use this when

• retrieved chunks start or end in the middle of a sentence
• the agent answers from a fragment that reverses the clause meaning ("shall" without "not", a cap without its amount)
• chunking uses fixed character or token windows with no sentence awareness
• re-indexing changed retrieval quality on legal text but not on other content

Not for this skill when

• chunks are whole but the retriever ranks the wrong ones (that is a ranking or embedding problem, not a splitting problem)
• the agent hallucinates clause text that is not in any chunk (check grounding and citation enforcement instead)
• the full clause is present in the chunk but the agent still misreads it (check the answering prompt, not the chunker)

Variant phrasings

• RAG splitter broke a contract sentence in half and retrieval returned the wrong half
• chunk boundary cut through "shall not disclose" and the agent quoted "shall disclose"
• fixed-size chunks split indemnity language mid-sentence
• retriever returned a clause fragment missing its negation

Why it happens

Fixed-window chunkers count characters, not sentences. Legal prose packs the operative meaning into the tail of long sentences (the "not", the dollar figure, the carve-out), so a boundary landing mid-sentence has an outsized chance of flipping meaning. Overlap helps only if the overlap itself lands on a boundary; without sentence awareness, both the chunk and its overlap can carry the same broken fragment.

Edge cases

• Tables and fee schedules have no sentences. Split them by row, keep the header row in every chunk, and never let a row straddle a boundary.
• Defined terms get their meaning from a definitions section pages away. Consider a two-tier index: clause chunks plus a definitions lookup the agent can consult.
• Very long single sentences (common in indemnity sections) can exceed the chunk size on their own. Allow oversized chunks for these rather than splitting them; a 1500-token chunk beats a severed indemnity clause.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_EsAIjJ5e8YpJxcqfRdH5iQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_EsAIjJ5e8YpJxcqfRdH5iQ

Thread query: the agent's RAG chunking cut a sentence mid-clause - "shall not exceed" split into "shall" and "exceed" and the retriever returned only the "shall" half

TL;DR:

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in Lexion by acting on the exact problem first: in Lexion, check whether the misclassified text was split across two extracted segments, merge the segments into one clause, set the limitation of liability type manually, rerun extraction on that agreement, and confirm the report groups it correctly. Do not rerun the same lookup, save or generation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one agreement first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

how to fix Lexion clause extraction error limitation of liability clause misclassified fails error

Use this when

• The operation in Lexion fails with this exact problem: how to fix Lexion clause extraction error limitation of liability clause misclassified fails error.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A clause lookup, template build, contract review or clause report is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a clause wording or negotiation position. That is a legal owner decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named agreement in Lexion and record the full problem text plus the clause, template or agreement involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: in Lexion, check whether the misclassified text was split across two extracted segments, merge the segments into one clause, set the limitation of liability type manually, rerun extraction on that agreement, and confirm the report groups it correctly. Verify: the single failing agreement now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring clauses, templates or agreements that share the same library group, template or approval rule, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in Lexion on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the approved clause text, the library record or the executed agreement, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the clause library change log so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

how to fix Lexion clause extraction error limitation of liability clause misclassified fails error

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single agreement proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - Lexion clause extraction error limitation of liability clause misclassified

The how to phrasing for the same failure in Lexion. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Lexion troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

Lexion classifies extracted text by heading and keyword patterns, and a limitation clause that uses cap language without the standard heading, or that is split by a page break, matches the indemnification pattern more strongly and gets the wrong type.

Edge cases

• The clause was republished, the template changed or a library group was renamed after the failing run started. Refresh the current state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single agreement proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other items. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared library group, template or approval rule can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The approved clause text governs wording, the library record governs status and version, and the executed agreement governs what was signed; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: Lexion at current versions, plus the clause library, template or review tool the query names; no extra tooling beyond access to the source records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_wUCt4b3eZFdFpCZsVmHRtg

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_wUCt4b3eZFdFpCZsVmHRtg

Thread query: how to fix Lexion clause extraction error limitation of liability clause misclassified fails error

TL;DR: Fix this in Lexion by acting on the exact problem first: in Lexion, check whether the misclassified text was split across two extracted segments, merge the segments into one clause, set the limitation of liability type manually, rerun extraction on that agreement, and confirm the report groups it correctly. Do not rerun the same lookup, save or generation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one agreement first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.