On 26 August 2025, the launch and discussion meeting for “General Rules for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Contract Drafting and Review Services” (plan number 20251506-Z-469), a national standardisation guiding technical document, was held at the China National Institute of Standardization. The meeting focused on the standardised application of AI technology in contract services.
A service standard, not a technology standard
The nature of the document is worth clarifying first. Its full title lands on “general rules for services”, and what it regulates is the service, not the model. It is not concerned with parameter counts or reasoning ability but with what rules a service provider should follow when drafting and reviewing contracts.
That distinction shapes the content framework: service capability and staffing, data-processing boundaries, the status of output and review responsibility, and disclosure duties to clients are all matters for a service standard.
Why the contract scenario needs its own standard
Contract text carries three sensitivities at once: trade secrets, personal information and major transactional arrangements. When AI takes part in contract work, the cost of error is far higher than in ordinary content generation - a clause deleted by mistake or a risk point misjudged can translate directly into economic loss.
At the same time, AI use in contract drafting and review is already widespread, from clause generation and risk flagging to bulk comparison, with tools proliferating. The spread of application against the absence of rules is the classic moment for standardisation to step in. See the AI application service provider action plan.
Signals from the administering body and drafting arrangements
The standard is administered by the National Technical Committee 264 on Service Standardization (SAC/TC 264), with drafting by the China National Institute of Standardization, Fatianshi and other bodies. The Standardization Administration issued the development and revision project plan in May 2025.
The “guiding technical document” tier is worth noting. It differs from a mandatory national standard and from a recommended national standard, and is typically used for forward-looking fields where technology is developing quickly and formal standards are not yet appropriate. Choosing this tier indicates that regulators see AI contract services as still taking shape and in need of directional guidance rather than hard constraints.
Issues the standard is likely to cover
From the positioning of a “general rules for services” document, the standard can be expected to address the following:
Service capability and personnel. AI assistance does not mean no one is responsible; a provider needs to explain the extent of professional involvement and the review mechanism. See the AI application ethics and security guideline.
Data-processing boundaries. Contract content often includes personal and commercially sensitive information, and data use and retention arrangements must be clarified before contracts are submitted to an AI system. See the obligations of major personal information processors.
Status of output. Clauses and risk warnings generated by AI are supporting opinions and cannot replace professional judgment, and this status must be clearly communicated to clients. See the AI-generated content labelling measures.
Service security. The stability, traceability and output quality of a contract service system may be brought within service security requirements. See the basic security requirements for generative AI services.
What it means for legal and compliance service providers
First, bring AI tool use within your service process rules, specifying which steps may be automated and which must be reviewed by a person.
Second, disclose to clients the extent of AI involvement, especially for contracts involving major transactions or sensitive data.
Third, retain process records so that AI suggestions and professional judgment can be distinguished and traced.
AI entering contract services changes not only efficiency but the allocation of responsibility. What standardisation has to solve is precisely how that responsibility is clearly divided among the service provider, the technology provider and the client. See China’s AI development and deployment policy.
This article is based on public information from the launch meeting for the national standardisation guiding technical document ‘General Rules for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Contract Drafting and Review Services’ and is for reference only; it does not constitute legal advice.