From The Sourcing Paradox series · Week 4: The way forward · First shared on LinkedIn, October 27, 2026
AI tools can now draft clauses, compare terms against your playbook and flag risk in minutes. That's useful, and I'd use them.
But the accountability stays with people. When a contract goes wrong, no one asks which model drafted it. They ask who approved it.
Regulation points the same way. Article 14 of the EU AI Act requires human oversight of AI systems classified as high-risk. Whether a given procurement tool falls into that category depends on how it's used, but the principle is a good one for any team.
In my view, every team using AI in contracting needs three things written down:
- Which decisions AI can support, and which it can't make.
- Who reviews AI-drafted terms before they go to a supplier.
- Who signs, and what they checked before they did.
That isn't red tape. It's what lets you use the tools with confidence.
Who signs off on what your AI drafts: legal, the category lead, or no one yet?
Get the free report
This post draws on The Sourcing Paradox, a free Procademai™ report for procurement leaders and professionals (section 3.1).
Get The Sourcing Paradox, free
Sources
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), Article 14: Human oversight. Source
This article is general information, not legal advice. Whether a given AI system is high-risk under the EU AI Act depends on how it is used. Prepared with the assistance of AI; errors are possible. Views are Procademai™'s unless a source is cited. Organization names belong to their owners; mention does not imply endorsement.
© 2026 Procademai / Holman & Holman LLC. Procademai™ and Holman Group AZ are affiliated brands of Holman & Holman LLC. Other affiliated business interests exist and apply where used.