Drop legal docs.
Get a report.
Nothing leaves your browser.

What I check.

115 rules at launch across ten categories — 220 more in v3, 730 more in v4 (1,000+ in total). Every finding cites the rule by id; legal assertions cite a statute or regulator by URL, drafting-practice findings cite their practice source.

How this works.

Your file goes in on the left, runs through a deterministic rule engine fed by the Knowledge Base, comes back out on the right as a Word document. Nothing else moves.

What I do not do.

• I do not give you legal advice. I am a software tool. If something here matters, hire a lawyer.
• I do not replace your judgment. I find mechanical things consistently. The hard calls are still yours.
• I do not use AI. Not a model, not a copilot, not "powered by." A probabilistic answer cannot be cited. The whole point of this is the opposite.
• I do not see your data. There is no server. Your contract never leaves the tab. Open DevTools if you want to confirm: the only requests you will see are same-origin GETs of my own static assets — rule data, playbooks, code — and none of them carries a byte of your document.

Why no AI?

Every other contract tool you can find right now leans on a language model. The pitch is the same everywhere: paste your contract, the AI summarizes, the AI flags risk, the AI suggests redlines. The output is fluent and confident and changes every time you run it. A junior associate can use that for research. A senior partner cannot sign off on it. An auditor cannot trace it. A client cannot reproduce it. The output is, by construction, uncitable.

Vaulytica is for the work the AI tools cannot do: exhaustive, identical, cited checking. The professional failure mode in contract review is not "I did not understand the indemnity clause." It is "I read eighty pages at midnight and missed that the auto-renewal triggers sixty days before expiry rather than thirty." A deterministic checklist runner catches that failure mode every time. A chatbot is neither exhaustive nor reproducible. If you want to chat with an AI about your contract, do; it is fine, just do not do it here.

Your privacy.

Vaulytica runs entirely in your browser. There is no server to send your file to, because there is no server. Open DevTools, open the Network tab, drop your contract, and confirm it: the only requests are same-origin fetches of the app's own static assets — rule data, playbooks, code — and not one of them carries a byte of your document. Verify it yourself. The site is a static page on Cloudflare Pages, the code is on GitHub under MIT, and there is no analytics, no telemetry, no error reporting, no fonts from CDNs. Every byte your browser fetches comes from vaulytica.com.

For court and ethics compliance.

Courts increasingly regulate generative-AI use in filings: the Ropes & Gray AI Court Order Tracker lists 300+ judge- and court-level directives, and the Legal AI Governance tracker counts roughly 113 orders that bind attorney filings — most requiring disclosure of AI use, verification of AI output, or a certification that neither occurred (New York's court-system-wide 22 NYCRR Part 161 took effect June 1, 2026). Privilege case law on consumer AI tools is diverging, not settled — compare United States v. Heppner (S.D.N.Y. 2026, no privilege for material run through a public generative-AI tool) with Warner v. Gilbarco (E.D. Mich. 2026, no waiver) — and ABA Formal Opinion 512 puts the verification duty on the lawyer.

Vaulytica can make the no-generative-AI certification provable rather than asserted: every report can ship with a one-page verification certificate (Word + JSON) stating the engine and knowledge-base versions, the input's SHA-256, the result hash, and that the analysis was a deterministic rule evaluation with no generative-AI, machine-learning, or probabilistic component — performed locally, with no document content transmitted. The certificate carries its own tamper-evident hash, and anyone can re-run vaulytica verify <report> <file> to reproduce the analysis exactly. It certifies what this tool did — never your overall compliance; the reviewing attorney remains responsible for verifying findings and meeting the applicable orders and professional-conduct rules.

Where the rules come from.

Every rule cites at least one of these. Every source is free and public.

FAQ.