Check which mid-term changes belong in the next renewal

Setup requirements

1. Define exact agreement-line identity and next-term boundary; same SKU alone is insufficient.

2. The commercial owner confirms which amendments are authoritative and whether quantities replace or add.

3. Do not infer that an unsigned proposal, temporary trial or one-time fee recurs.

4. Agree this bounded synthetic scope and confirm a real unresolved need before any implementation pilot. The written design does not authorize executing it.

Inputs and access

1. Name

   contract_baseline.json

   Source or owner

   Account owner

   Scope

   Synthetic agreement ID, original term, recurring line IDs, quantities and product identities.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

2. Name

   amendment_copies.txt

   Source or owner

   Account owner

   Scope

   Synthetic signed-status excerpts with effective dates, delta-versus-replacement meaning and end-date conditions.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

3. Name

   renewal_draft.json

   Source or owner

   CS operations

   Scope

   Synthetic next-term draft line IDs, proposed quantities and references.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

4. Name

   carryforward_rules.json

   Source or owner

   Commercial owner

   Scope

   Approved product crosswalk, interval convention, recurring versus one-time rules and precedence.

   Sensitivity

   Synthetic fixture only. A real-data pilot requires a separate minimized scope and approved handling.

   Permission needed

   Owner approval of exact data, processing environment, retention and recipients before a pilot. No pilot is authorized by this plan.

Human approval boundaries

1. Before a pilot, the accountable owner approves exact synthetic/minimized copies, processing environment, retention and allowed recipients.

2. Owner validates identity mappings, authority, status definitions and all unresolved evidence.

3. Any source mutation, account access, upload, external communication, commercial commitment, payment or changed permission requires separate appropriate authorization.

The problem

A renewal draft can miss a closed upsell or carry an expired concession forward. Someone must reconcile the continuing product quantities before the next term is quoted.

Suggested task

Reconstruct the owner-approved continuing line-item baseline and compare it with a renewal draft.

What you could produce

A line-level carry-forward review showing omitted, duplicated, expired and unresolved changes, with evidence for the account owner.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

An agent can extract changes from mixed document language and explain conflicts. Interval joins and quantity arithmetic must be deterministic. If authoritative amendments are already structured, a native renewal report or tested spreadsheet is preferable.

When this work comes up

Role

Customer success operations

Trigger

A renewal draft is prepared after one or more amendments closed.

Human approval

Owner reviews scope, rules, identities and findings; operating decisions remain separately authorized.

Finished output

A line-level carry-forward review showing omitted, duplicated, expired and unresolved changes, with evidence for the account owner.

Proposed evaluation scope — no pilot authorized

Scope

One agreement, at most 20 recurring lines and 10 amendments; one next-term boundary.

Limit origin

Original editorial evaluation bound, not a verified tool limit.

Overflow action

Stop and request owner-approved partitioning; no silent truncation.

Pilot authorized

No

Evidence boundary

Source facts describe human friction; O*NET describes duties; shared official documentation supports file primitives. The six-step workflow, safeguards, numerical fixture and outputs are original proposed designs.

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Freeze the baseline, amendment copies and renewal draft; list missing documents and their authority.

   Output: Agreement-chain manifest.

   Expected output: Agreement-chain manifest.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner approves exact inputs and rule scope before any pilot.

2. 2

   Extract each quantity change with source span, effective interval, sign and delta-or-replacement state; hold ambiguous language.

   Output: Typed amendment ledger.

   Expected output: Typed amendment ledger.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner resolves ambiguous meaning, identity or authority before affected rows advance.

3. 3

   Join approved changes to original line IDs and order them by effective date and owner precedence. Preserve cancellations and superseded records.

   Output: Effective-dated line history.

   Expected output: Effective-dated line history.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner resolves ambiguous meaning, identity or authority before affected rows advance.

4. 4

   Compute the continuing quantity at the next-term boundary under the supplied rules, keeping one-time and expired changes outside the baseline.

   Output: Reconstructed next-term baseline.

   Expected output: Reconstructed next-term baseline.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner resolves ambiguous meaning, identity or authority before affected rows advance.

5. 5

   Compare the draft by agreement-line identity, quantify omissions or double additions and attach an owner question to every unresolved rule.

   Output: Carry-forward differences.

   Expected output: Carry-forward differences.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner reviews draft findings; no operational action authorized.

6. 6

   Prepare separate review files and check the acceptance specification without modifying the renewal, contract or CRM.

   Output: Owner-review packet.

   Expected output: Owner-review packet.

   Checkpoint: Retain source IDs/spans and explicit unknown states. No source writes or external action.

   Approval gate: Owner accepts the review artifact; any live change or communication needs separate approval.

Original starter prompt — proposed

Origin

editorial_proposal

Execution authorized

No

Text

Using only {approved_synthetic_inputs} and {owner_rules}, Reconstruct the owner-approved continuing line-item baseline and compare it with a renewal draft. Follow the six-step design. Preserve exact identities, source citations and uncertainty; make calculations inspectable. Write only separate review drafts to {approved_output_folder}. Do not guess missing facts, alter sources, access accounts, send, upload, buy, post, settle, make personnel decisions or claim the fixture passed.

Expected output schema — proposed

Primary key

1. agreement_id

2. baseline_line_id

3. next_term_start

Columns

1. product_id

2. baseline_quantity

3. amendment_ids

4. continuing_quantity

5. draft_quantity

6. difference

7. rule_ids

8. source_spans

9. hold_reason

10. owner_decision

Record status

draft_review_only

Common provenance columns

1. input_snapshot_id

2. rule_version

3. source_document_id

4. source_row_or_span

5. reviewer_decision

Unknown value policy

Unknown numeric values remain null, never zero. Preserve raw rows and typed relation/allocation IDs; unresolved rows do not silently enter approved totals.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Label

Synthetic authored example, not observed output

Synthetic

Yes

Executed

No

Input

Baseline l1

10

Continuing delta a1

3

Expired delta a2

2

Draft

15

A3

non-authoritative after owner review

Expected

Continuing quantity

13

Draft excess

2

Temporary change carried

No

Approval

pending

Limits

1. Original proposed and untested design; no source documents this complete agent workflow.

2. A reported problem is not proof of prevalence, willingness to pay, harm magnitude or current demand.

3. Historical product reports require current-installation checks; a current capability document only establishes general primitives.

4. Native reports or a deterministic script may be simpler. Exports, identity mappings, context size, privacy controls and actual tool compatibility remain untested.

5. Numerical fixtures are synthetic and have not been executed. Owner review is necessary; no time saving, cost saving or revenue outcome is asserted.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   ChatGPT Work

   Required capabilities

   1. Assess this plan’s input, operation and output requirements before selecting an account.

   Capability source urls

   1. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/get-started-with-work

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate only. Shared source facts are general primitives; this plan remains unexecuted.

   Workflow compatibility

   BotCurrent has not tested this workflow.

2. Name

   Claude

   Required capabilities

   1. Assess this plan’s input, operation and output requirements before selecting an account.

   Capability source urls

   1. https://support.claude.com/en/articles/16761823-claude-cowork-and-chat-are-one-claude

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate only. Shared source facts are general primitives; this plan remains unexecuted.

   Workflow compatibility

   BotCurrent has not tested this workflow.

Failure modes

1. An amendment quantity is treated as a delta when it replaces the old quantity.

2. An expired temporary add-on or one-time fee is copied into the next term.

3. Two similar products or unsigned documents are silently merged.

Recovery and troubleshooting

1. Signal

   An amendment quantity is treated as a delta when it replaces the old quantity.

   Recovery

   Hold the affected line until the commercial owner labels delta or replacement.

   Resume condition

   The accountable owner supplies the missing authoritative evidence or approved interpretation; otherwise keep the affected result unresolved.

2. Signal

   An expired temporary add-on or one-time fee is copied into the next term.

   Recovery

   Retain effective-end and recurrence fields; re-evaluate only after owner confirmation.

   Resume condition

   The accountable owner supplies the missing authoritative evidence or approved interpretation; otherwise keep the affected result unresolved.

3. Signal

   Two similar products or unsigned documents are silently merged.

   Recovery

   Require exact line lineage and authority; preserve alternatives in an unresolved list.

   Resume condition

   The accountable owner supplies the missing authoritative evidence or approved interpretation; otherwise keep the affected result unresolved.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Baseline L1 has 10 seats. Signed A1 adds 3 continuing seats. Signed A2 adds 2 temporary seats ending December 31, 2026. Renewal starts January 1, 2027 and incorrectly shows 15. A one-time setup fee is present in the draft. A3 says quantity 12 without stating replacement or delta.

Acceptance checks

1. Before A3 is resolved, L1 is unresolved rather than forced to 13 or 25.

2. After the owner labels A3 as non-authoritative, the continuing L1 quantity is 13; draft 15 has excess 2.

3. Temporary A2 and the one-time setup fee remain excluded with separate rule references.

4. Removing the exact baseline-line relation holds the amendment rather than matching by SKU alone.

5. No quote is sent, contract interpreted as legal advice or CRM record changed.

6. Every conclusion traces to approved source rows or an explicitly labelled owner rule; rerunning the same frozen input must not change identities or totals.

7. All source copies remain unchanged. Any duplicate, missing key, stale snapshot or conflicting authority is held visibly.

Stop conditions

1. Input scope, required identity or calculation policy is missing.

2. Unexpected real sensitive/personal data is supplied before handling approval.

3. The requested output would require live account access, external upload/send, accounting posting, purchase, access change or irreversible action.

Executed

No

Fixture status

Designed only; no acceptance fixture or workflow executed.

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

Not specified.

Items

1. Plan access, model usage, tool runtime and storage costs unknown.

2. Export preparation, evidence cleanup, review and correction effort unmeasured.

3. No native integration, paid service, new account or software installation assumed.

4. Case-specific effort is unknown: source extraction, identity repair, owner-rule preparation, fixture design and review may dominate model cost.

Caveat

No measured time saving, current demand, ROI or price claim. Compare the simpler remedy first.

Canadian adaptation — proposed

Verify local privacy and organizational record-handling requirements before any real-data pilot; preserve original currency, business calendars and time zones. No Canadian deployment or compliance claim.