Why Governance Is Not Optional

A playbook that nobody maintains becomes a liability. It starts flagging issues that no longer matter, missing positions that have changed, and applying logic that drifted away from your actual negotiation standards months ago.

Reviewers learn to ignore it. Trust erodes. The output feels generic. And eventually someone decides the tool "doesn't work",  when the real problem is that the playbook was never treated as something that needed to be maintained.

Governance is what separates a playbook that performs on day one from one that performs consistently for the next two years. This content covers how to do that: who owns the playbook, how responsibilities should be divided, and the habits that keep quality high without creating administrative overhead.

Treat Playbooks as Products, Not Documents

This is the most important shift in mindset. A playbook is not a PDF. It's not a checklist. It's a product your team relies on to make decisions at scale and like any product, it needs a lifecycle.

That lifecycle has five stages: 

1. Creation
2. Testing
3. Iteration
4. Versioning
5. Eventual retirement. 

Teams that treat playbooks as products invest in all five. Teams that treat them as documents invest only in the first and wonder why accuracy degrades.

Everything else in here flows from this principle.

Building Well from the Start

The biggest mistake teams make when creating a playbook is trying to make it perfect before anyone has used it. The instinct to cover every clause, anticipate every scenario, and pre-load every fallback position leads to playbooks that are bloated, hard to test, and slow to improve.

A better approach: start with 8 to 12 core rules covering your highest-impact clauses. Test them against real contracts. Add rules only when gaps consistently appear in practice. This keeps the playbook usable, focused, and much easier to maintain.

The same principle applies to fallback positions. Don't add a fallback until a contract has actually triggered the need for one. Fallbacks embedded before testing often encode theoretical preferences rather than real-world requirements and they clutter the playbook without adding value. If a fallback is in your playbook, it should be there because practice demanded it.

Testing Against Real Contracts

The only reliable way to refine a playbook is through real-world inputs. Generic or sanitised test documents mask problems that will surface the moment a difficult counterparty template lands on your desk.

A solid testing stack looks like this: one friendly counterparty paper, one hostile counterparty paper, one clean template, one messy template, and one highly bespoke contract. If a rule performs reliably across all five, it's durable. If it misfires on two or three of them, the rule needs work - not the playbook structure.

After each review session, track where the AI over-flags, under-flags, or produces redlines you consistently have to modify. These patterns are signals. A rule you find yourself refining the same way every time is a rule that needs updating at source. Use the Refine Redline feature to tune outputs in real time, but if you're refining in the same direction more than twice, update the underlying rule so the correction is embedded permanently.

Keeping Rules Sharp Over Time

When a rule misfires, the instinct is to add more words. This rarely helps. Good playbooks are precise, not verbose. Tightening a rule usually means one of four things: refining a threshold, splitting one rule into two, removing subjective language like "reasonable" or "material," or making the purpose of the rule more explicit in the instruction itself.

Remove rules that have stopped triggering. If a rule hasn't flagged anything across ten contracts, two quarters, and multiple reviewers, it's carrying dead weight. Clean playbooks consistently outperform long ones because every rule that fires is a rule that matters.

Watch for drift - the gradual divergence between what the playbook does and what your team actually needs. The signs are recognisable: reviewers consistently override outputs, redlines feel misaligned with your template, business stakeholders push back on results, or the playbook flags issues your team no longer cares about. Drift is normal. Catching it early is what governance is for.

The Right Cadence for Maintenance

For teams of any size, the governance cadence is simple: one owner, quarterly reviews.

Quarterly is the right frequency - fast enough to stay current with template changes and evolving commercial positions, slow enough to avoid churn. Each review should check rule quality and consistency, retire anything that's become dead weight, adjust thresholds that no longer reflect your negotiation reality, and log what changed and why.

Every 18 to 24 months, consider whether the playbook needs rebuilding rather than patching. Templates change. Market practice shifts. At some point, incremental edits stop being enough and legacy complexity accumulates to the point where a fresh start - regenerated with AI or rebuilt against a clean template - produces a better result than continued maintenance of the old version.

Versioning doesn't need to be complicated. Labels like "MSA v1.1 – Updated liability fallback" or "NDA v2.0 – Updated mutual definition logic" are enough to maintain a clean change history and prevent internal confusion about which version is current.

Who Owns the Playbook

Playbooks only work when someone owns them - not conceptually, but literally. A playbook with no named owner drifts. A playbook with a clear owner becomes a reliable system the entire organisation can trust.

The ideal primary owner is Legal Operations or Legal Engineering. This function sits closest to workflow design, standards management, and cross-team consistency. They run governance cycles, maintain rule quality, and ensure the playbook reflects live organisational policy.

If your organisation doesn't have a legal ops function, the right owner is a senior in-house lawyer. They bring subject-matter authority: they know the negotiation boundaries, define acceptable risk, and act as the final escalation point. The tradeoff is that a lawyer-owner typically has less bandwidth for the structural and quality-control work that legal ops handles natively. In smaller teams, one person often has to hold both roles.

There are several things that should never happen. Ownership should not rotate between reviewers. It should not sit with a junior lawyer who lacks the authority to make policy decisions. It should not be shared between a committee with no clear tie-breaker. Any of these arrangements guarantee drift, because no one is truly accountable for what the playbook says.

Governance Responsibilities: A RACI Framework

The following model works across teams of any size, from a three-person legal function to a thirty-person legal team. It resolves the two failure modes that kill playbook programs: too many owners (so no one maintains it) and too few perspectives (so it becomes one lawyer's personal preferences rather than a company standard).

Roles:

• LOps/LEng: Legal Operations or Legal Engineering
• SME: Subject-Matter Expert Lawyer (the template owner)
• Reviewer: Any lawyer using the playbook in day-to-day review
• Business Lead: Stakeholder from Procurement, Sales, Finance, etc.

Playbook Creation

‍

Playbook Maintenance and Iteration

‍

Day-to-Day Use

‍

Governance, Versioning, and Rollout

‍

This model keeps authority with the SME, keeps execution and quality with legal ops, keeps contextual feedback flowing from reviewers, and keeps commercial alignment with the business team. Each group contributes what they're closest to — and nobody's accountability bleeds into someone else's lane.

A Final Word on Stability

Governance often gets framed as the work of keeping things current. But the real goal is stability - a playbook that goes two months without needing edits because its rules are mature, its templates are settled, its team is aligned, and its standards are consistent.

That stability doesn't happen by accident. It's the result of the discipline described in this chapter: clear ownership, regular review, honest testing, and the willingness to retire what no longer works. When you get there, the playbook stops being something you maintain and starts being something you trust.

‍