Compare two document versions for material changes
Distinguish changes in obligations, scope, dates, and meaning from editorial rewrites
7 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28
1
Add your context
Your text stays in this browser. AILesson Prompts does not send it to a model or server.
2
Your prompt
Unfilled fields remain visible as placeholders, so you can still copy and edit the prompt
Compare the two versions and explain material changes.
Earlier version:
[oldVersion]
Newer version:
[newVersion]
Materiality, affected audience, and scope:
[materiality]
Compare meaning, not just wording. Detect additions, removals, narrowed or broadened scope, changed obligations, permissions, thresholds, dates, exceptions, definitions, and responsibility. Separate material, potentially material, and editorial changes. For each material item return: locator, earlier meaning, newer meaning, change type, affected party, practical consequence, and confidence. Quote only the shortest phrases needed. Do not assume a legal or operational effect that the text does not establish. List moved-but-unchanged content, contradictions, and sections that cannot be aligned, then propose human review questions.
Private by defaultPrompt assembly happens locally in your browser. Avoid placing confidential information into any AI service unless your organization allows it.
From input to outcome
A worked example
See how concrete context turns this recipe into a usable result
Actual input
Earlier version
[§2 Expenses] Employees must submit travel expenses within 30 calendar days of return. Receipts are required for items above £25. Manager approval is required before booking international travel. [§5 Support] Finance aims to review claims within 10 working days.
Newer version
[§2 Expenses] Employees must submit travel expenses within 20 calendar days of return. Receipts are required for items of £25 or more. Director approval is required before booking international travel. [§3 Support] Finance aims to review complete claims within 10 working days.
Materiality and audience
For employees and approvers, treat deadlines, receipt thresholds, approval authority, and eligibility conditions as material. Section renumbering alone is editorial. Do not provide legal advice.
Example output
Material changes
§2 submission deadline: 30 calendar days → 20 calendar days. Type: shortened obligation window. Affected: employees. Consequence: claims must be submitted 10 days sooner. Confidence: high.
§2 receipt rule: above £25 → £25 or more. Type: threshold inclusion changed. Affected: employees and reviewers. Consequence: exactly £25 now requires a receipt. Confidence: high.
§2 international approval: manager → director. Type: approval authority changed. Affected: travelers, managers, directors. Consequence: manager approval alone no longer satisfies the stated rule. Confidence: high.
Support review target: all claims → complete claims. Type: eligibility condition added. Consequence: whether the 10-day aim applies may now depend on completeness; “complete” is undefined. Confidence: high on wording, medium on operational effect.
Editorial: Support moved from §5 to §3 with the same 10-working-day target. Human review: define a complete claim; confirm transition treatment for trips already booked or claims already open.
Why this works
1
Meaning-level comparison catches changed conditions that ordinary text diffs obscure.
2
Materiality labels focus review while retaining uncertain cases for human judgment.
Check the result
Does every reported change show both earlier and newer evidence?
Are editorial rewrites separated from changed meaning?
Are uncertain consequences labeled rather than asserted?
ChatGPT