Claude Document Analysis: Legal, Research & Technical Docs

Analyze this contract as a legal reviewer. Focus on:

1. UNUSUAL CLAUSES: Identify any clauses that deviate from standard industry practice.
   For each, explain what's unusual and the practical risk.

2. MISSING PROTECTIONS: What standard protections are absent?
   - Limitation of liability
   - Indemnification
   - Termination rights
   - Data protection / confidentiality
   - Dispute resolution

3. AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE: Flag any language that could be interpreted multiple ways.
   Quote the ambiguous passage and explain the possible interpretations.

4. OBLIGATION SUMMARY: Create a table:
   | Party | Obligation | Deadline/Trigger | Penalty for Non-Compliance |
   |---|---|---|---|

5. RISK ASSESSMENT: Rate each section Low/Medium/High risk with 1-sentence justification.

6. RECOMMENDED CHANGES: For each issue found, propose specific revised language.

If the contract references external documents not provided, flag what's missing
and explain why it matters.

Compare these [N] contracts/documents for consistency.

For each key provision (liability, termination, payment, IP, confidentiality),
create a comparison table:

| Provision | Doc 1 | Doc 2 | Doc 3 | Inconsistent? |
|---|---|---|---|---|

For inconsistencies:
- Explain the practical implication of each difference
- Recommend which version is most favorable to [party]
- Flag any conflicts that would make the documents incompatible if signed together

Analyze these [N] papers on [topic]. Synthesize:

1. CONSENSUS FINDINGS: What do all/most papers agree on?
2. CONTRADICTIONS: Where do papers disagree? For each disagreement:
   - What's the specific point of disagreement?
   - What evidence does each side cite?
   - Is it a factual dispute or a methodological difference?
3. METHODOLOGY COMPARISON: Create a table comparing:
   | Paper | Method | Sample Size | Key Limitation (stated by authors) | Limitation (not stated but apparent) |
4. GAPS: What questions does none of these papers address?
5. EVOLUTION: If papers span multiple years, trace how understanding evolved.

For each finding, cite the specific paper and section.

Critically review this research paper:

1. THESIS: State the paper's central claim in one sentence.

2. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT:
   - Strongest evidence supporting the thesis
   - Weakest evidence — what makes it weak?
   - Missing evidence: what SHOULD the authors have measured/included?

3. METHODOLOGY CRITIQUE:
   - Is the sample size adequate? (Compare to typical sizes in this field)
   - Are there confounding variables the authors didn't control for?
   - Would the methodology detect a false result? (False positive risk)

4. INTERPRETATION:
   - Do the RESULTS actually support the CONCLUSIONS?
   - Are there alternative explanations for the findings that the authors don't discuss?

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
   - If true, how significant is this finding to the field?
   - What would it take to overturn this finding?

Review this technical specification for completeness and clarity:

1. MISSING SPECIFICATIONS: What should be specified but isn't?
   Check for:
   - Error handling (what happens when things go wrong?)
   - Edge cases (empty input, maximum values, concurrent operations)
   - Performance requirements (latency, throughput targets)
   - Security considerations
   - Backward compatibility

2. AMBIGUITIES: Flag any specification that could be implemented in multiple ways.
   "The system shall be fast" → Ambiguous. Suggest: "The system shall respond
   within 200ms for the 95th percentile."

3. CONTRADICTIONS: "Section 3 requires X but Section 7 implies not-X"
   (Claude's long context makes this cross-section contradiction detection powerful.)

4. TESTABILITY: For each requirement, state whether it's testable.
   Untestable: "The system shall be user-friendly"
   Testable: "New users shall complete onboarding in under 5 minutes"

5. IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS: Flag any requirement that would be unusually
   expensive, complex, or risky to implement.

Analyze this transcript for:

1. KEY DECISIONS: List every decision made, who made it, and the stated rationale.

2. ACTION ITEMS: Extract all action items with:
   - Task
   - Owner (if specified)
   - Deadline (if specified)
   - Dependencies mentioned

3. DISAGREEMENTS: Identify points of disagreement:
   - Topic
   - Positions taken
   - Was it resolved? If so, how?

4. UNSPOKEN TENSIONS: Are there moments where someone seems to hold back,
   change the subject abruptly, or use hedging language? Flag these with timestamps.

5. FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS: What questions were raised but left unanswered?

6. SENTIMENT SUMMARY: Overall tone — constructive, confrontational, uncertain, decisive?