1 cumulative citations
View corpus contextA verified LLM-to-optimizer pipeline prevents infeasible procurement plans by checking solver-grounded contract constraints before execution; in a synthetic micro-benchmark the approach eliminates many MOQ violations and heavy-tailed regret that plague extraction-only systems.
Contract2Plan: Verified Contract-Grounded Retrieval-Augmented Optimization for BOM-Aware Procurement and Multi-Echelon Inventory Planning
Contract2Plan augments LLM-based clause extraction with a solver-based compliance gate that compiles extracted constraints into a BOM-aware MILP and verifies feasibility, triggering repairs or abstention to avoid infeasible or contract-violating procurement plans, with synthetic experiments showing extraction-only pipelines suffer heavy-tailed regret and frequent MOQ violations.
Citation observations
Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.
Procurement and inventory planning is governed not only by demand forecasts and bills of materials (BOMs), but also by operational terms in contracts and supplier documents (e.g., MOQs, lead times, price tiers, allocation caps, substitution approvals). LLM-based extraction can speed up structuring these terms, but extraction-only or LLM-only decision pipelines are brittle: missed clauses, unit errors, and unresolved conflicts can yield infeasible plans or silent contract violations, amplified by BOM coupling. We introduce Contract2Plan, a verified GenAI-to-optimizer pipeline that inserts a solver-based compliance gate before plans are emitted. The system retrieves clause evidence with provenance, extracts a typed constraint schema with evidence spans, compiles constraints into a BOM-aware MILP, and verifies grounding, eligibility, consistency, and feasibility using solver diagnostics, triggering targeted repair or abstention when automation is unsafe. We formalize which clause classes admit conservative repair with contract-safe feasibility guarantees and which require human confirmation. A self-contained synthetic micro-benchmark (500 instances; T=5) computed by exact enumeration under an execution model with MOQ uplift and emergency purchases shows heavy-tailed regret and nontrivial MOQ-violation incidence for extraction-only planning, motivating verification as a first-class component of contract-grounded planning systems.
Summary
Main Finding
Contract2Plan is a verified retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-to-optimizer pipeline that turns contract text into auditable, BOM-aware procurement and multi-echelon inventory plans by (i) retrieving clause evidence with provenance, (ii) extracting typed, span-grounded constraints, (iii) compiling those constraints into a MILP planning model, and (iv) enforcing a solver-driven verifier + repair loop that blocks ungrounded fields, detects contradictions, guarantees feasibility (or abstains), and thereby substantially reduces heavy-tailed economic and compliance risk relative to extraction-only pipelines.
Key Points
- Problem: procurement and inventory planning depend on contract clauses (MOQs, lead times, price tiers, allocation caps, substitution approvals) scattered across heterogeneous documents; extraction errors (omissions, unit mistakes, mis-scoping, contradictions) can silently produce infeasible or non-compliant plans whose effects amplify through BOM coupling.
- Architecture: a pipeline separating extraction from optimization where the verifier is the compliance gate. Main stages: document ingestion (OCR, table handling) → retrieval (BM25 + dense + rerank, version-aware) → schema-constrained extraction (typed JSON with evidence spans and confidence) → normalization/linking → compilation to a deterministic MILP backbone → multi-layer verifier (schema/unit checks, grounding/provenance, precedence/resolution, solver feasibility/IIS or slack diagnosis) → targeted repair loop or human gate → decision cards for audit.
- Constraint schema: every non-default numeric/eligibility field requires evidence spans; fields include supplier/part IDs, effective windows, MOQ, lead times (normalized to planning periods), capacity caps, price tiers with eligibility binaries, and substitution policy. Ungrounded fields are blocked from affecting the model.
- Verification & conservative repair: for monotone feasibility constraint classes (e.g., MOQ, lead time, capacity, cadence) conservative repairs are provably contract-safe under explicit assumptions (i.e., raising an MOQ or extending lead time to the conservative value preserves feasibility guarantees). For non-monotone or exception-heavy clauses (conditionals, carve-outs, approvals), the system abstains and escalates to humans rather than guessing.
- Explainability/auditability: decision cards map each emitted order/decision to the binding constraints and their provenance spans and give short sensitivity notes to support reviewer checks.
- Empirical risk illustration: a synthetic micro-benchmark (500 instances, horizon T=5) enumerating 95^? (paper reports exact enumeration over 95 = 59,049 order schedules per instance) order schedules under a realistic execution model (supplier uplifts sub-MOQ orders; late arrivals cause emergency purchases) shows extraction-only planning has heavy-tailed regret relative to verified planning: mean regret $142.33 (≈5.4% of mean optimal cost; 95% bootstrap CI [113.67,171.07]), 90th percentile $587.74, 99th percentile $1,569.61, maximum $2,242.22; planned MOQ-violation incidence 16.6% (95% CI [13.4%,20.0%]).
- Positioning: unlike LLM-only or LLM-decision-agent approaches, Contract2Plan treats LLMs as evidence/retrieval/extraction tools, not final decision-makers—safety and compliance are enforced by deterministic schema checks and solver verification.
Data & Methods
- Inputs per instance: document set D (contracts, addenda, tenders, emails, catalogs; possibly OCR), master data M (supplier IDs, item master, AVL), BOM B (ap,f coefficients, alternates), network G (nodes, arcs, transport lead times/costs/capacities), demand d_{n,f,t} for t=1..T.
- Retrieval: hybrid (sparse BM25 + dense embeddings) with reranking; version- and scope-aware filters to prefer addenda/signed documents where appropriate. Top-k evidence spans per field stored with (doc id, version, offsets).
- Extraction: schema-constrained JSON extractor emits typed fields with evidence spans and confidence scores. Deterministic normalization performs units/dates/currency conversion, parses and canonicalizes tier tables, and links supplier/part strings to master IDs (ambiguous mappings trigger human gates).
- Consolidation/precedence: cluster by (supplier, part, field, scope, effective window); resolve conflicts by effective dates, explicit amendment language, and document-type ranking (signed addendum > master agreement > email). If unresolved and clause class is safe, apply conservative merge; otherwise abstain.
- Optimization backbone: deterministic MILP capturing BOM coupling, multi-echelon flows, orders x_{s,p,t} ≥ MOQ_{s,p} z_{s,p,t}, capacity caps, and tier-eligibility binaries u_{s,p,t,k} with thresholds τ_k and constraints to enforce discount eligibility (and other constraints as appropriate). Emergency buys and backlog variables included per service model.
- Verifier layers:
- Schema/unit validation (IDs present, numeric sanity, monotonicity of tiers).
- Provenance/grounding enforcement (each numeric/eligibility field must be supported by evidence spans and correctly scoped).
- Cross-document consistency & precedence resolution with conservative merges for monotone classes.
- Solver-based feasibility check: if infeasible, produce IIS or slack-minimization diagnosis to localize conflicts, trigger targeted re-retrieval/re-extraction or human gate.
- Repair loop: targeted (focused retrieval & focused re-extraction) instead of global re-run; conservative repair only for provably safe classes; explicit human queries for unsafe or ambiguous clauses.
- Explainability: emission of decision cards tying actions to binding constraints and evidence spans.
- Synthetic benchmark: 500 instances, horizon T=5; exact enumeration of order schedules and execution simulation where supplier behavior includes uplift of sub-MOQ orders and late shipments cause emergency purchases. Reported metrics quantify economic regret and compliance violation frequency for extraction-only vs verified pipeline.
Implications for AI Economics
- Reducing tail economic risk: Contract2Plan shows verification and provenance materially reduce heavy-tailed regret and compliance violations that arise when automated extraction is trusted unconditionally. For firms, this translates to lower downside exposure from rare but costly contract misreads (stockouts, emergency buys, unexpected cash-flow shifts).
- Value of auditability and compliance guarantees: explicit provenance and decision cards enable internal and external audits, improving trust, regulatory compliance, and allocative transparency in procurement decisions—important in industries with regulated components, government procurement, or high contractual penalties.
- Labor vs automation trade-offs: by abstaining on unsafe clause classes and providing concise human queries, the system targets scarce human attention to ambiguous or high-value decisions; this can improve the productivity of procurement/legal teams while preserving human oversight where needed. There is an implicit economic choice: accept conservative (costly) repairs to avoid human time, or route to humans at a measurable labor cost—optimizable per org.
- Market and contracting effects: as planners systematically enforce contract clauses (with provenance), supplier negotiation dynamics may shift—suppliers may change stated MOQs, allocations, or tier structures if automated enforcement alters order patterns; verified pipelines could increase contract compliance but also highlight ambiguous or adverse terms for renegotiation.
- Generalizability and limits: the current work focuses on a deterministic MILP backbone and a synthetic benchmark. Real-world economics will require (i) scaling to larger document corpora and more complex clause logic, (ii) stochastic/robust modeling of demand and lead-time uncertainty, and (iii) evaluation on live procurement/execution logs. The abstention policy imposes an economic cost (human gating) that organizations must weigh against the risk of automated errors.
- Research directions: quantify the operational ROI of verified extraction (reduction in emergency buys, penalties, labor saved), integrate stochastic/robust optimizers while preserving the verifier guarantees, study incentive effects on supplier behavior, and design economic policies for selecting conservative vs human-verified repairs (optimizing total cost = planner cost + human review cost + residual risk).
Summary takeaway: Contract2Plan demonstrates a practical, safety-first paradigm for embedding LLM-powered extraction into mission-critical optimization systems—prioritizing provenance, solver-based verification, and conservative abstention to materially reduce tail economic and compliance risk in contract-grounded supply-chain planning.
Assessment
Paper Typedescriptive
Evidence Strengthlow — The evaluation relies on a self-contained synthetic micro-benchmark (500 instances, T=5) computed by exact enumeration rather than real-world procurement data or field experiments; results demonstrate failure modes in simulation but do not provide causal evidence of impacts in operational settings.
Methods Rigormedium — The paper presents a clear, well-engineered pipeline: clause retrieval with provenance, typed constraint extraction, compilation to a BOM-aware MILP, and solver-based verification with formalized classes of clauses that allow conservative repair; however, rigor is limited by reliance on synthetic scenarios, small horizon (T=5), and no evaluation on production-scale BOMs, heterogeneous contract language, or live LLM error distributions.
SampleA synthetic micro-benchmark of 500 simulated procurement instances with planning horizon T=5, built under an execution model that includes MOQ uplift and emergency purchases; instances were evaluated via exact enumeration to compute regret and incidence of MOQ violations under extraction-only planning versus the verified pipeline.
Themeshuman_ai_collab productivity
GeneralizabilitySynthetic dataset: lacks real-world contract language variability and messy supplier behaviors, Small problem horizon (T=5) and limited instance count may not reflect long-horizon planning dynamics, Assumes particular clause classes and structured BOMs; real contracts may contain more complex, ambiguous or interdependent clauses, Performance depends on LLM extraction error profiles and provenance quality, which were simulated rather than measured from production LLMs, Scalability to large BOMs, many suppliers, and high-dimensional MILPs is untested, Integration costs and human-in-the-loop friction in operational procurement workflows are not evaluated
Claims (7)
| Claim | Direction | Outcome | Confidence & Evidence | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procurement and inventory planning is governed not only by demand forecasts and bills of materials (BOMs), but also by operational terms in contracts and supplier documents (e.g., MOQs, lead times, price tiers, allocation caps, substitution approvals). Task Allocation | null_result | presence_of_contract_terms_affecting_planning |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| LLM-based extraction can speed up structuring these terms. Organizational Efficiency | positive | speed_of_structuring_contract_terms |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
not reported
|
| Extraction-only or LLM-only decision pipelines are brittle: missed clauses, unit errors, and unresolved conflicts can yield infeasible plans or silent contract violations, amplified by BOM coupling. Error Rate | negative | incidence_of_infeasible_plans_and_contract_violations |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| We introduce Contract2Plan, a verified GenAI-to-optimizer pipeline that inserts a solver-based compliance gate before plans are emitted. Organizational Efficiency | positive | presence_of_solver_based_compliance_gate_in_pipeline |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| The system retrieves clause evidence with provenance, extracts a typed constraint schema with evidence spans, compiles constraints into a BOM-aware MILP, and verifies grounding, eligibility, consistency, and feasibility using solver diagnostics, triggering targeted repair or abstention when automation is unsafe. Error Rate | positive | constraint_extraction_and_verification_capabilities |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| We formalize which clause classes admit conservative repair with contract-safe feasibility guarantees and which require human confirmation. Decision Quality | positive | existence_of_formal_contract_safe_repair_conditions |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| A self-contained synthetic micro-benchmark (500 instances; T=5) computed by exact enumeration under an execution model with MOQ uplift and emergency purchases shows heavy-tailed regret and nontrivial MOQ-violation incidence for extraction-only planning. Error Rate | negative | regret_distribution_and_MOQ_violation_incidence_of_extraction_only_planning |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=500
heavy-tailed regret and nontrivial MOQ-violation incidence
|