Legal contracts are structurally complex documents in which contradictions may emerge across distant and interconnected provisions. Although large language models (LLMs) improve legal language understanding, contradiction analysis remains a human-centered and evidence-grounded review task. We present ContraVis, a visual analytics system for human-in-the-loop contradiction analysis in legal contracts. The system models contracts as typed paragraph graphs that combine explicit contractual references with semantic relationships between paragraphs. This graph plays a dual role: it conditions LLM reasoning and serves as the interactive representation the analyst explores, keeping model context and human inspection aligned across coordinated views. In a controlled comparison, graph-conditioned reasoning recovered more injected contradictions than standalone LLM analysis as contract length grew, while surfacing additional candidates for analyst validation. A formative study with contract-domain lawyers indicated that in-context evidence comparison supported contradiction validation, and we distill design implications for evidence-grounded, LLM-assisted document review.
As LLM agents move from answering questions to carrying out procedures, failures can be unwarranted rather than visibly wrong: the final response looks acceptable even though the system skipped the check, branch, dependency, or invariant that made the answer justified. Output-only evaluation sees the answer, and trace-aware judging sees activity, but neither identifies which obligations were active for the query. We introduce CONTRACTEVAL, a diagnostic framework for making those active obligations explicit. It represents procedural instructions as query-active obligations and matches them against response or trace evidence, turning omissions, wrong branches, ordering errors, extra actions, invariant breaches, and output-contract violations into distinct conformance failures. On a controlled suite of audited procedural contracts, output-only and trace-aware LLM judges miss many injected structural failures; under gold expected and observed graphs, ContractEval detects and localizes all of them. LLM-backed extraction preserves much of this signal but remains calibration-sensitive. ContractEval is therefore not a compliance guarantee; it makes procedural conformance auditable rather than implicit in final-answer quality.
Contract inference requires multiple judgments about a shared document, but aggregate accuracy can conceal changes in the individual decisions. Repeated agreement is also insufficient: a model may consistently return the wrong answer. In this paper, we compare Jev with nine language models on ContractNLI, evaluating inference cost, response time, average correctness, and correctness across repeated request conditions. Controlled comparisons vary hypothesis visibility, requested outputs, and output order while keeping the contract and target judgment fixed. Jev has the lowest cost and median response time among the evaluated configurations, while hosted language models achieve higher baseline accuracy. Rankings by baseline accuracy differ from rankings by correctness across every condition and repeat, although small differences in the latter do not establish a general stability advantage. Development diagnostics further reveal compensating corrections and regressions, as well as persistent errors. These findings motivate evaluating cost and response time alongside whether individual judgments remain correct as the request configuration changes. Code: https://github.com/ZF-Utokyo/Jev-Benchmark
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on reasoning tasks, but whether this reflects faithful logical inference or heuristic approximation remains unclear. We study this question in legal entailment by comparing three paradigms, including pure LLM classification, LLM-based Formal Reasoning, and solver-based Formal Reasoning using the Z3 SMT solver, on a re-annotated subset of ContractNLI across five LLMs. Our re-annotation reveals a systematic and measurable gap between pragmatic legal interpretation and strict formal entailment, where a substantial proportion of legally sound inferences are not formally grounded without additional unstated assumptions. While introducing formal structure improves accuracy, with LLM-based Formal Reasoning achieving the highest benchmark performance, we show that this gain does not imply faithful reasoning. We identify three recurring failure modes: scope laundering, where LLMs report solver-inconsistent classifications without executing the underlying formal reasoning, producing conclusions that appear logically grounded but are not; implicit constraint blindness, where LLMs overlook logical constraints present in formal representations; and program synthesis failures, where LLMs generate incorrect Z3 code despite structured prompting. Critically, scope laundering persists across all models, raising serious concerns about the faithfulness of LLM-based formal reasoning as a proxy for symbolic execution. These results reveal a fundamental gap between benchmark accuracy and logical faithfulness.