Compare contract versions without turning edits into legal conclusions

A version comparison can help a lawyer find changes faster. The assistant should report textual differences and questions, not decide whether a clause is acceptable or legally effective.

Prepare the input

Provide two shareable versions with clear names and dates. State which is the baseline. Keep attachments and schedules visible in the source list. If a file is scanned, check that the text extraction is readable before comparison.

Run the workflow

Ask for additions, deletions, and changed wording by clause. Preserve exact references. Require the assistant to distinguish a textual observation from a question about meaning.

Prompt to copy

Baseline: [version A]. Proposed version: [version B].
Build a change table: clause, old text reference, new text reference,
textual change, and question for counsel.
Flag missing schedules and renumbering separately.
Do not decide enforceability, acceptability, or legal risk ratings.
Mark extraction uncertainty rather than reconstruct missing wording.

Review a worked example

Illustrative change: “30 days” becomes “45 days” in a payment clause. The table should identify the changed period and its location. Whether that change is commercially acceptable is a reviewer decision. If a clause number moved but wording did not, record renumbering rather than invent a substantive change.

Run a spot check on a clause that appears unchanged. OCR or paragraph alignment can create false additions and deletions. If the comparison is noisy, fix the source text or split the documents into matched sections before asking for another interpretation. Keep commercial and legal decisions outside the extraction table.

Use it again

Verify significant changes directly in both originals. Keep the accepted comparison with its exact source versions. Bot can support individual preparation; a connected contract-management process needs a separate assessment.