The pattern this addresses
The cut flowers consultation surfaced this exact issue. The Royal NZ Institute of Horticulture flagged that the draft used "devitalisation" in clause 4.2 but "treatment for sterilisation" in Annex B. That kind of inconsistency is preventable. It costs the directorate a revision cycle when raised in submissions, and it costs reputational credibility with industry submitters who pay attention.
How the tool catches it
The model knows the BIES IHS template structure (Scope, Definitions, Eligible Countries, Pre-export Requirements, Treatment, Documentation, Inspection, Certification, Equivalence, Audit). It knows which terms are canonical in the published IHS corpus. It knows which cross-references are required where. It returns an issue list, severity-ranked, with a suggested fix and a corpus citation for each.
Try it on a sample draft clause. Or paste your own.
The samples are short, deliberately flawed draft IHS clauses, in the style observed in real BIES drafting work. The tool returns a redline you would expect from a strong internal QA review, in seconds.
Scenario. Draft IHS clause 4.2 of the Cut flowers and foliage IHS amendment, plus draft Annex B. The drafter has used inconsistent terminology and is missing a required cross-reference.
Scenario. Draft IHS clause for aquatic animal products. Multiple issues: missing required Documentation section reference, undefined term "approved facility", and inconsistency with the in-force IHS for biological products.
Run on your own draft clause. Paste the draft IHS clause and a brief context line. The tool calls the Anthropic Claude API from your browser. Your API key stays in this tab and is not transmitted anywhere except to api.anthropic.com.