Find what changed and why it matters.

Identify the baseline before comparing

Add both documents to a Project and name which one is the baseline. Include the document date and approval status if you know them. File modification time or an attachment order is not a reliable explanation of which version governs the work. If the relationship is unclear, resolve it before asking for a change summary.

State what the reviewer needs to decide: approve revised scope, update a process, or understand an edited report. This sets the level of detail. A content editor may need wording changes, while a project owner may need changes to milestones, deliverables, owners, assumptions, and acceptance criteria.

Ask for an inspectable change table

Request columns for the topic, baseline wording or meaning, revised wording or meaning, location in each source, and practical effect. Ask the Agent to label additions, removals, and changed meaning separately. Similar wording can conceal a different obligation, while a rewritten paragraph can preserve the same substance.

Request short excerpts only where they help establish the difference; a table filled with entire paragraphs is hard to review. Keep source locations specific enough to find the original. If a file cannot be read reliably, flag the affected portion as unchecked instead of inferring what its layout or missing text probably contains.

Review a fictional scope revision

In this fictional example, Cedar Studio receives a revised project scope. The delivery target is unchanged, but the inputs required to meet it and the review allowance have changed. A summary that says “minor wording updates” would miss the owner’s actual decision.

The table is an example of requested analysis, not a native tracked-changes feature. Verify each row against the two source documents. If the language has contractual consequences, the comparison can organize the questions, but the responsible reviewer still needs to interpret and approve the actual terms.

Check coverage beyond the first pages

Review tables, appendices, footnotes, and captions when they affect the decision. A changed number in an appendix may matter more than a rewritten introduction. Ask the Agent which portions it compared and which it could not verify. Coverage should be stated as evidence about this run, not assumed from a confident completion message.

Open both files using the available page, sheet, or slide controls. Spot-check an unchanged section as well as the flagged changes. This helps reveal a comparison that only noticed obvious edits. For a long document, divide the review into named sections and retain the unresolved items between Sessions.

Investigate mismatches and apparent deletions

Content may move rather than disappear. If the table reports a deletion, search for the idea elsewhere in the revised document before treating it as removed. Conversely, repeated language can remain in one section while an exception elsewhere changes its effect. Ask for cross-references around the disputed term. A sentence moved from general scope into an optional add-on needs a meaning check even if its wording is identical.

If the Agent compares the wrong pair, stop editing the summary and correct the input selection. If a scanned page is unreadable, provide a usable source or arrange a separate check. Do not fill the gap from another version. Keep “not checked” separate from “no change,” because they justify different decisions.

Turn the comparison into a review decision

Finish with a short list of material changes, questions, and the owner of each follow-up where that owner is known. Keep proposed acceptance separate from recorded approval. A useful summary tells the reader which source locations need attention and what information would resolve the outstanding issues.

Save the comparison as a new result so both originals remain available. Open it in Files or Preview and inspect long tables for missing rows or cut-off content. When a third version arrives, name the new baseline explicitly; do not assume the previous proposal became approved simply because you compared it.

Try it with a small example.

Before you use the result.

• The baseline and revision are named explicitly.
• Every material row includes a location in both sources where applicable.
• Moved text is distinguished from deleted content.
• Unchecked material is not labeled unchanged.
• The saved comparison preserves unresolved review decisions.