Version Control: CLM's Misunderstood "Feature"

Most CLM systems proudly tout Version Control as a cornerstone feature. Here's the uncomfortable truth: it's often a poorly implemented capability that creates more problems than it solves.

The 60-Version Problem

A CLM advocate recently boasted to me about his system storing 60 versions of a single contract—one for every person who touched it. After five months, the deal fell through and the contract was never executed.

He was genuinely proud that he could retrieve any of those 60 versions at any time to see the contract's status throughout the negotiation.

Five months of work. Sixty stored versions. Zero business results.

When I asked if anyone ever actually looked at those old versions, the answer was no. When I asked if he could tell me what changed between version 27 and version 45, he said he could retrieve both and compare them manually.

That's not useful. That's busy work.

Why Traditional Version Control Fails

The problem is fundamental: CLM systems are built around document repositories that store complete new versions for every change. Here's the typical workflow:

1. John is alerted by workflow to review a contract.

2. John retrieves the current contract version

3. John makes his edits

4. John uploads the new version with notes about his changes

5. The entire document gets stored again as new document version.

Rinse and repeat sixty times.

Here's what's broken about this approach:

• No verification that notes match changes - John could accidentally upload an old version while noting he "reviewed financial terms," and the system wouldn't catch it.

• No granular change tracking - You can't see what actually changed between versions. Did someone modify a single word or delete twenty paragraphs? The Word document is opaque.

• Impossible to analyze patterns - Which clauses get negotiated most often? What language consistently causes problems? You can't answer these questions when changes are buried in document versions.

Software Engineers Figured This Out Years Ago

Developers faced this exact problem with code management. Early systems required programmers to "check out" files, make changes, then upload new versions—just like CLM systems today.

Then the popular engineering tool named Git revolutionized everything.

Modern code management tools don't track file versions. They track line-by-line changes. No one needs to lock files. Multiple developers can work simultaneously on the same codebase without blocking each other.

The benefits are dramatic:

• Document concurrency - Multiple users can access the same files simultaneously

• Granular change tracking - See exactly what changed, line by line

• Meaningful analytics - Understand patterns in how code evolves

Why haven't contract systems adopted these proven approaches?

The Hidden Costs of Version Control

Beyond usability problems, version control creates massive inefficiencies:

• Storage Costs Spiral Every minor edit—even changing a single word—requires storing the entire document again. For long contracts with embedded images and diagrams, these storage costs become substantial. You're not storing the words that changed; you're storing complete duplicate documents.

• Environmental Impact All that redundant data sits in energy-intensive data centers, contributing unnecessary environmental costs for zero added value.

• Lost Analytics Opportunity When changes are buried in document versions instead of tracked granularly, you lose the ability to analyze negotiation patterns and improve future contracts.

A Better Approach: Sentence-Level Change Management

At Docgility, we designed our system around a different philosophy—one borrowed from modern software development.

Sentence-Level Tracking We break contracts into individual sentences and track changes at that granular level. No need to store entire document versions. No more wondering what changed between "version 27 and version 45." You can see exactly who modified which sentences and when those changes were approved.

Document Concurrency Multiple stakeholders can review and edit simultaneously without locking anyone out. Just like modern development teams collaborating on code.

Meaningful Analytics With sentence-level tracking, you can identify which contract language gets negotiated most frequently, which clauses cause consistent problems, and how to optimize your templates for faster execution.

Why We Don't Support Word-Level Changes

You might notice Docgility doesn't allow Microsoft Word-style tracked changes where you modify individual words within sentences. This is intentional.

When a sentence contains two word changes, the approval must consider both changes together—the full meaning is in the complete sentence. Approving word-by-word creates confusion and slows the process.

We recognize this feels different than what people are used to, and that's a fair objection. But Docgility is optimized for contract velocity, which means optimizing for downstream approvals and clear decision-making, not just editing comfort.

The Bottom Line

Version control sounds like a feature, but in traditional CLM systems, it's often a liability:

• Incurs massive storage costs with minimal benefit

• Impedes meaningful change and approval visibility

• Prevents concurrent collaboration

• Blocks useful analytics

  
  

The contracting world needs to learn from software development: track changes granularly, enable concurrency, and build systems that help teams collaborate in real-time rather than forcing them to wait in line.

That's how you actually accelerate contracts instead of just storing more versions of them.