# ClauseProof — Reusable Prompt Playbook Version 1.0 · 11 November 2026 Part of the ClauseProof synthetic demo kit. --- ## What this is Three prompts that turn a loose pile of contract documents into an auditable review. The method has one non-negotiable rule, and everything else is scaffolding around it. **The rule: every legal assertion must carry a verbatim quotation and a locator, or be marked `UNVERIFIED`.** That single constraint is what separates a review from a summary. A summary tells you what someone thinks the contract says. A review shows you the words, where they are, and which clause decides the contest. --- ## Before you start 1. Upload all six files to the assistant in one message: - `01_Master_Service_Agreement.docx` - `02_SOW_AS-BR-2026-014_Rev1_Issued.docx` - `03_SOW_AS-BR-2026-014_Rev2_ClientMarkup.docx` - `04_DPA_Schedule_3.docx` - `05_Email_Thread_Change_Request.docx` - `06_Company_Playbook.txt` 2. Run the three passes **in the same conversation**, in order. Pass 2 depends on Pass 1; Pass 3 depends on Pass 2. 3. Do not correct the output between passes. Record the errors instead — the errors are the evidence that a human was in the loop. 4. Keep the raw output. If you cannot show the raw output, the verification log is worth nothing. --- ## Pass 1 — Document register, evidence index, fact timeline ```text You are a contract analyst. Work only from the six files I have uploaded. Do not rely on what contracts of this type usually say, and do not fill gaps from general knowledge. Files: 01_Master_Service_Agreement.docx 02_SOW_AS-BR-2026-014_Rev1_Issued.docx 03_SOW_AS-BR-2026-014_Rev2_ClientMarkup.docx 04_DPA_Schedule_3.docx 05_Email_Thread_Change_Request.docx 06_Company_Playbook.txt Produce the four tables below and nothing else. Do not write an introduction or a conclusion. TABLE A — DOCUMENT REGISTER Columns: File | Document type | Parties named | Date on the face of the document | Signature status (fully executed / executed by one party only / unexecuted) | Evidence for signature status (quote the signature block and give the page or paragraph) | Documents referenced but not attached TABLE B — EVIDENCE INDEX One row per legally material statement. Columns: Ref | Statement (neutral, maximum 25 words) | File | Clause or message number | Verbatim quote (maximum 40 words) | Issue it bears on Rules for Table B: - Copy the quote character for character. Do not paraphrase inside the quote column. - If you cannot locate the exact words, write UNVERIFIED in the quote column and do not present the statement as established anywhere else in your answer. - Cover at least: payment terms, intellectual property, liability, termination, data protection, change control, scope exclusions and service levels. TABLE C — FACT TIMELINE Columns: Date | Event | Source (file and clause or message number) | Status (written agreement / unilateral request / internal policy / unverified assertion) | Quote TABLE D — MISSING DOCUMENTS AND OPEN QUESTIONS Columns: Item | Where it is referenced (file and clause) | Why it matters | What is needed ``` --- ## Pass 2 — Conflict and risk matrix, plus scope table ```text Using only the six files and the tables you produced in the previous step, produce the two tables below. TABLE E — CONFLICT AND RISK MATRIX Columns: ID | Issue | Provision A (file, clause) | Quote A | Provision B (file, clause) | Quote B | Nature of the conflict | Controlling provision (file, clause, verbatim quote) | Consequence if Provision A is applied | Risk (High / Medium / Low) | Recommended action Rules for Table E: - A "controlling provision" is the clause that decides which text prevails. Quote it. - If no clause decides which text prevails, write NO CONTROLLING PROVISION and state what is missing. - Classify each item as one of: (i) binding obligation, (ii) proposal not yet accepted, (iii) internal policy that binds no one contractually. State the classification in the Issue column. - Risk scale: High = money, ownership or data exposure, or blocks the launch. Medium = negotiation cost or delay. Low = drafting hygiene. - Where a provision only takes effect on signature, say so and cite the clause that creates that condition. TABLE F — SCOPE TABLE One row per deliverable, request or work item appearing in any file. Columns: Item | In scope? (Yes / No / Unclear) | Basis (file, clause, verbatim quote) | Change Order on file? (Yes / No, with evidence) | Status (agreed / requested only / disputed) ``` --- ## Pass 3 — Amendment schedule and negotiation brief ```text Using the six files and the two matrices from the previous step, produce (a) an amendment schedule and (b) a one-page negotiation brief. (a) AMENDMENT SCHEDULE Columns: Clause | Existing text (verbatim) | Proposed text | Reason | Authority (file, clause, verbatim quote) | Priority (Must-have / Tradeable / Concession) Rules: - Every proposed change must cite the authority that justifies it. If you cannot state an authority, do not propose the change. - Quote the existing text exactly. Do not redraft the clause in the "existing text" column. - Do not describe this table as a tracked-changes document. It is an amendment schedule. (b) NEGOTIATION BRIEF, one page, with these five headings only: 1. Position in one sentence. 2. The points that must not move, each with its clause authority. 3. What can be traded. 4. What happens if the other side refuses. 5. What remains unverified. If you can also produce a .docx of the revised document, do so — but state explicitly whether the file contains true tracked changes (revision marks that Word can accept or reject) or only revised text. Do not describe plain revised text as tracked changes. ``` --- ## Output schemas at a glance | Table | Grain | Purpose | |---|---|---| | A — Document register | One row per file | Establishes what exists, what is signed, what is missing | | B — Evidence index | One row per material statement | The proof layer: quote plus locator | | C — Fact timeline | One row per event | Separates agreement from request | | D — Missing documents | One row per gap | Converts silence into an action | | E — Conflict matrix | One row per contested issue | Names the clause that decides the contest | | F — Scope table | One row per work item | The scope-creep defence | | Amendment schedule | One row per clause changed | Change plus authority plus priority | --- ## What to capture for the write-up - The six input files, unmodified. - The raw output of each pass, before any human edit. - One screen recording of Pass 2 running, 45–60 seconds, showing the tool working on the files. - The verification log, filled in after the run. - One example where the model was wrong, and the clause you used to correct it. --- ## Limits This playbook produces a working draft, not advice. The model can mis-cite, merge two clauses into one, or state a conclusion the quoted words do not support. The verification log exists because of that, not in spite of it. Every row must be checked against the source by a human before anything is sent to a client. --- *ClauseProof demo kit · synthetic sample · no real client data.*