BankCo · In-House LegalSR 11-7 governed

Westfield Bank

P2Tier 2 · High

Mutual NDA · NDA_WestfieldBank_JV_v1.pdf · submitted 5 hours ago

01
Context
DealExploratory joint-venture talks — co-branded SMB lending platform· the transaction these parties are negotiating
Counterparty
Westfield Bank
Regional bank (potential JV) · ~$4.2B
Counsel: Sullivan & Cromwell
sent Mutual NDA
Submitted to · BankCo
Priya Nair
VP, Corporate Development
Forwarded to Legal · 5 hours ago
escalated to Legal
Reviewer — you
Tong
Senior Counsel, Corporate
Reviewing now
02
Where this stands
Enginecomplete · handed to youYouConfirm routingResolveReturn to RM
Turn within 2 business daysin queue 5 hours ago
03
The decision
Engine recommendation
Senior Corporate Counsel

Corporate / Strategic · P2

Escalategate not cleared · 91% < 95%

Approve sends it to Senior Corporate Counsel. Modify re-routes and teaches the engine. Resolve settles the redlines here and returns to Priya Nair. Return asks the RM for more.

04
Evidence

What the engine read

classification 93%

Mutual NDA — JV exploration, competitively sensitive

Extracted signalsclick any to trace to source

How material it is

Risk vectorroutes to specialist · curates context
  • Counterparty0.84
  • Strategic0.71
  • Regulatory0.34
  • M&A0.18
  • Data / Privacy0.10
Severityranks priority
0.71Tier 2 · High

Severity Tier 2 sets priority and SLA. Routing is decided by the Counterparty dimension (0.84) — the same severity with a different hot dimension routes to a different specialist. The vector routes, not the scalar.

EscalateAuto-route gate · 90–100% band
target 95%
this case 91%
90%100%

This case sits 4 points below the 95% calibrated auto-route threshold — so it escalates to a human rather than auto-clearing.

Gate compares routing-decision confidence against system calibration (when the engine says 95%, observed accuracy must hold at 95%) — the SR 11-7 number.

Why this routing — policy basis

Any non-disclosure agreement with a counterparty that competes with BankCo in a line of business, executed in connection with a joint venture, partnership, or strategic exploration, requires senior corporate counsel review. Agreements permitting use of residual knowledge require explicit scoping prior to execution.
Why it applies

Counterparty is a competing regional lender + JV context + broad residuals clause → §5.1 review triggers fire.

Precedent applied

JV NDAs with regional banks → Senior Corporate Counsel (not Junior pool, even at low standstill exposure)

Institutional rule learned 6 weeks ago — the engine is routing with the bank's own accumulated judgment.

Proposed resolution — suggested redlines

3 proposed
  1. §5.d — Residuals

    Strike the unaided-memory residuals carve-out; limit to genuinely non-confidential information

    A broad residuals clause lets a competitor retain and reuse BankCo's strategy disclosures. BankCo template excludes residuals for competitively sensitive counterparties.

  2. §1.c — Purpose

    Narrow 'Purpose' to the specific co-branded SMB pilot; exclude broader lending strategy

    An open-ended purpose invites over-broad disclosure to a competitor. Scope it to the evaluated transaction only.

  3. §7 — Term

    Reduce confidentiality term 5 years → 3 years post-termination

    Recent JV NDAs (FY24, 4 instances) settled at 3 years; 5 years is an outlier for exploratory talks.

05
Oversight
Audit trail
model-risk record · SR 11-7
5 events
  1. just nowTong · Senior Counsel, CorporateCase opened for review
  2. 5 hr agoIntake systemDocument received from Priya Nair (Corp Dev)
  3. 5 hr agoExtraction engine v3.18 signals extracted, mean confidence 0.9393%
  4. 5 hr agoMateriality engine v1.4Risk vector + severity computed: 0.71 (Tier 2). Counterparty + strategic dimensions hot.
  5. 5 hr agoRouting engine v1.4Destination: Senior Corporate Counsel. Auto-route gate: 0.91 < 0.95 → ESCALATE91%