Colay / Guides
Check sensitive wording before it enters the regulatory review process
When a sentence will appear in material reviewed by a regulator, a small rewrite can change its scope or turn a target into a promise. Colay can help prepare a structured editorial review before the responsible specialists assess the document. Request several focused checks against supplied authoritative material, keep their findings separate and build a question log. This is preparation for professional review, not a legal opinion or regulatory approval.
Establish the source and the reviewer’s instructions
Record the document’s purpose, audience, jurisdiction, version and intended use. Ask the responsible legal or compliance reviewer which language is fixed and which editorial changes are permitted. Provide only material you are authorized to share, with references that let the reviewer trace a sentence back to its approved basis. Do not ask the model to guess the applicable rules from the industry name.
The SEC’s 1998 Plain English Handbook explains that clearer drafting should not remove complex information readers need, and that documents must still meet applicable legal requirements. It is useful writing guidance in a US securities context, not a current universal rulebook or approval of an AI workflow.
Separate eight review lenses instead of asking for a verdict
Give available Colay agents the same excerpt and source pack. Assign focused questions and collect their findings separately before synthesis. The eight lenses below are an editorial checklist. They are not eight independent legal reviews; model outputs can share assumptions and miss the same issue.
| Lens | Question | Useful output |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Who and what does the sentence cover? | Missing or altered boundaries |
| Modality | Did may, must, will or a target change? | Potential changes to the commitment |
| Evidence | Which supplied source supports each factual claim? | Source IDs or an explicit gap |
| Definitions | Are defined terms used consistently? | Term and location of mismatch |
| Exceptions | Was a qualification or exception removed? | Source-to-draft difference |
| Numbers | Are dates, units and quantities preserved? | Exact discrepancy |
| Reader meaning | What stronger interpretation might a reader infer? | Question for the professional reviewer |
| Document consistency | Does another supplied section say something different? | Conflicting passages without an invented resolution |
Use a prompt that produces questions and traceable edits
Keep the original sentence visible beside every proposed revision. A finding should say which text triggered it and which supplied instruction it relates to. If no source supports a conclusion, the output should identify the missing basis instead of inventing a statute, a required clause or a confident compliance verdict.
Prepare an editorial review of this wording for the responsible professional: [draft with sentence IDs]. Document context: [purpose, audience, jurisdiction, version]. Approved sources and reviewer instructions: [source pack]. Review scope, modality, evidence, definitions, exceptions, numbers, reader meaning and consistency. For each finding show the exact passage, source ID, possible meaning change and question requiring review. Keep locked wording unchanged. Do not determine legality, invent rules or citations, or claim approval. If you suggest a clearer version, preserve the original beside it and label it an unapproved draft.
Notice when a smoother sentence becomes a stronger promise
Take fictional administrative wording: “Our target is to acknowledge eligible requests within 10 business days.” A rewrite says: “We resolve all requests within 10 days.” It sounds simpler but changes target to commitment, acknowledgement to resolution, eligible to all and business days to days. This example illustrates language drift; it is not recommended wording for a real filing.
The useful finding is a list of those changes with questions for the reviewer. It is not “four violations” or a conclusion that the original is lawful. Another model agreeing with the rewrite does not remove the differences. Restore the approved meaning or obtain an explicit decision from the responsible specialist before proceeding.
Deliver a review packet with a clear stopping point
Keep the document in its normal approval system. Colay helps compare wording and prepare the packet; it does not submit the material or replace the review owner. Stop generating alternatives once the remaining question requires authoritative interpretation. A precise unresolved question is a better handoff than ten polished versions that quietly choose the answer for the reviewer.
- Include the original, proposed version, source mapping and unresolved question log.
- Separate stylistic suggestions from edits that may change scope, facts or commitments.
- Record the professional reviewer’s decision against the exact final version.
- Reopen review if later translation, formatting or surrounding text changes the meaning.
Questions, answered
Are eight AI checks equivalent to eight independent legal reviews?
No. They are assigned editorial lenses. They do not establish statistical independence, professional qualification or compliance, and they can miss the same issue.
Can I ask Colay to supply the applicable regulation?
For this workflow, obtain the authoritative materials through your established legal or compliance process and provide them as the source pack. Do not base submission wording on an unverified generated citation.
What can I send to the reviewer?
A concise packet with exact before-and-after wording, source references, possible meaning changes and unresolved questions. Keep every proposed rewrite visibly unapproved until the reviewer decides.
Sources and methodology
- SEC Plain English Handbook, August 1998
Primary writing guidance for US securities disclosure. Used for the clarity-versus-meaning distinction, not as current legal advice or endorsement.
Bring your next question to Colay
Choose a model, use Auto, or bring several perspectives together with Consensus.