Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-09
Diff two versions of a contract clause and explain what actually changed in practice
Compares an original clause against a counterparty's redline and translates the change into what it means for you in practice, not just what words moved — built for spotting redlines that look small but shift real risk.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
Compare the original clause and the redlined version below and tell me what actually changed — not the wording difference, but what changed in practice for the side I'm representing. ORIGINAL CLAUSE "Either party may terminate this agreement upon 60 days' written notice." REDLINED VERSION "Client may terminate this agreement upon 60 days' written notice; Vendor may terminate at its sole discretion upon 10 days' written notice." WHICH SIDE I'M ON I represent the Client. WHAT THIS CLAUSE GOVERNS Termination rights in a 12-month services agreement. STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE MECHANICAL CHANGES List every substantive word or phrase that changed between the two versions — added, removed, or reworded. Skip pure formatting or renumbering changes. STEP 2: TRANSLATE EACH CHANGE INTO PRACTICAL EFFECT For each mechanical change, state in one sentence what actually shifts for my side if this version were signed instead of the original — who bears a cost, who has to act by when, whose discretion expanded or narrowed. Pay particular attention to small-sounding changes that shift a lot in practice: "may" becoming "shall," a cap being removed, a notice period being shortened, "sole discretion" being added to one side only, or a carve-out being narrowed. These are the changes a quick read tends to miss because the sentence still looks similar. STEP 3: NET ASSESSMENT State in one line, from my side's perspective, whether this redline is better, worse, or neutral for me overall, and why — but do not phrase this as a legal conclusion about enforceability, only as a practical read of who the redline favors. WHAT NOT TO DO Do not assume the redlining party's motive; describe only what the words now do. Do not fill in any missing context about the deal that wasn't given to you — if the practical effect depends on a fact you don't have (like a dollar cap elsewhere in the contract), say what additional information you'd need rather than guessing. OUTPUT FORMAT 1. Table: Change | Practical effect | Who it favors. 2. One-line net assessment. 3. Any missing context flagged as needed. 4. A closing line: this comparison is a drafting aid to help you spot what a redline actually does, not a legal opinion — before accepting or rejecting this redline, have a qualified lawyer confirm the practical read, especially for any change involving discretion, caps, or notice periods.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
A model asked to "compare these two clauses" defaults to describing the textual diff, which is exactly what a word processor's track-changes view already shows for free — the actual value has to come from translating a wording shift into a practical consequence, which requires a separate, explicit step because language models tend to describe what changed in the sentence rather than what changed in the world unless told to make that translation deliberately. Splitting mechanical identification from practical translation into two steps prevents a common shortcut where the model jumps straight to a vague summary judgment ("this version favors the vendor") without ever surfacing the specific word that caused it, which leaves the reader unable to verify the claim against the actual redline. Naming the specific small-sounding-but-large-effect patterns to watch for — modal verb shifts, removed caps, shortened notice, one-sided discretion — matters because these are the exact changes an experienced contract reviewer trains themselves to catch and a first read tends to skim past, since the sentence structure looks almost identical to the original; giving the model this checklist compensates for the fact that it has no innate sense of which redlines are the ones lawyers specifically watch for. Instructing the model to flag missing context rather than guess at it addresses a real failure mode where an LLM asked for a "net assessment" will invent a plausible-sounding rationale to fill a gap in the facts it was given, which is exactly the kind of confident-sounding fabrication that's dangerous in a document meant to inform an actual negotiation position.
What you get back
Change: Vendor's termination right changed from mutual 60-day notice to a one-sided 10-day sole-discretion right. Practical effect: Vendor can now exit the engagement on 10 days' notice while you remain bound to 60, and "sole discretion" means they don't need a reason. Who it favors: Vendor, clearly. Net assessment: worse for Client — this redline removes the mutuality entirely. This is a drafting aid, not a legal opinion — confirm with a lawyer before accepting or rejecting.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-09
Changelog
- 2026-08-09 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
