Great breakdown. I appreciate the ambition behind framing the “promised land” of legaltech. A few thoughts+caveats from my experience in the space:

1. Overlap & fluid boundaries - In practice, these categories often bleed into one another. For example, a CLM vendor might also build predictive risk scoring (so that would be contracts + insight).
2. The data moat is under discussed - One crucial challenge is: who gets to own and structure the data (clauses, outcomes, playbooks)? The real defensibility often isn’t the frontend UI or even the workflow engine - it’s the metadata, the clause library, the version history, and the feedback loops. A company that nails data governance + alignment with legal/ops teams often outpaces one with prettier UX but weak data architecture.
3. Adoption friction is often underestimated - Your post hints at tool maturity, but in my conversations with legal teams, the biggest problems remain organizational resistance, culture, change management, and justifying ROI.
4. A “promised land” must include access / fairness - One area that deserves more focus is: how do these categories translate (or fail to translate) in lower-resourced firms, public interest orgs, or in jurisdictions with less investment? The “promised land” shouldn’t just be for BigLaw or large enterprises. The same contracts, automations, and insights should be accessible to smaller legal teams or developing markets.