# Compare Closing Documents Against Purchase And Sale Agreement > Guides document-by-document comparison of closing deliverables against the executed purchase and sale agreement to surface deviations, assess their significance, and identify potential corrective steps before or after closing. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/compare-closing-documents-against-purchase-and-sale-agreemen` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/compare-closing-documents-against-purchase-and-sale-agreemen` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-closing-documents-against-purchase-and-sale-agreemen/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-closing-documents-against-purchase-and-sale-agreemen --- # Skill: Compare Closing Documents against Purchase and Sale Agreement — Deviation Report ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Baseline compares closing documents in isolation rather than anchoring each document to the specific PSA obligation it is meant to satisfy, leaving silent gaps in coverage. - Baseline identifies mismatches descriptively without rating severity, which makes the output hard to use for closing decisions and escalation. - Baseline stops at describing the deviation instead of connecting it to the governing provision, the interacting closing document, and the practical consequence for the client. - Baseline misses inconsistencies inside schedules, settlement mechanics, title materials, and certificates where the operative deviation is numerical, definitional, or conditional rather than facial. - Baseline overlooks compound issues created when multiple documents point in the same wrong direction, such as a conveyance mismatch reinforced by a title exception or a closing statement that implements the wrong economic assumption. - Baseline omits next-step remediation, leaving the reader with issues but no action path. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - The executed PSA is the controlling baseline for the closing package: it sets the required documents, the required form of those documents, and any closing conditions tied to delivery or content. - Deed and conveyance documents must match the PSA’s transfer covenant, including parties, estate conveyed, legal description, reservations, and permitted exceptions. - Assignment and assumption instruments must capture the full intended bundle of leases, contracts, permits, warranties, and related rights unless the PSA narrows that scope. - Seller certificates and affidavits must not shrink, qualify, or re-cut the surviving representations, covenants, or disclosure mechanics set by the PSA. - Settlement and closing statements must implement the PSA’s economic mechanics, including prorations, credits, deposits, holds, and fee allocations. - Title materials must reflect the PSA’s title standard, approved exceptions, and any bring-down or gap-coverage requirements. - Estoppels, consents, notices, payoff letters, withholding forms, and similar deliverables must be checked against any PSA threshold, form, timing, and condition precedent. - When a legal proposition is stated, anchor it to the governing PSA language and any incorporated standard, statute, regulation, or customary conveyancing rule that controls the document type. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Start by enumerating the closing documents and the PSA provisions each document is supposed to satisfy; if only one document type is in scope, state that expressly. - Compare each closing document to the corresponding PSA provision on four axes: parties, scope, form, and timing. - For each issue, state: the deviation, the PSA provision or other controlling authority, the relevant scale or threshold if the documents provide one, the interacting document or clause, and the downstream consequence. - Treat missing documents, missing signatures, missing exhibits, and missing schedules as distinct issues, not as a general “incomplete package” observation. - Review all numerical and formula-based statements in settlement materials against the PSA mechanics before drawing any conclusion; if the source documents supply a calculation basis, use it consistently and flag any mismatch. - Compare title and conveyance documents together so a description mismatch, exception mismatch, or carve-out mismatch is evaluated as a combined risk rather than an isolated drafting point. - Classify each issue by severity on a uniform ordinal scale and use the same scale throughout the report. - If a deviation could be cured, specify the most practical cure path: amendment, corrected execution, supplemental delivery, escrow adjustment, waiver, post-closing covenant, or other targeted fix. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - The PSA is the upstream control document; closing deliverables are downstream implementations and may not silently expand, narrow, or reprice the deal. - A closing statement usually operationalizes PSA economics, so any difference in proration date, credit treatment, holdback, or fee allocation should be treated as a structural mismatch, not a clerical issue. - A deed, title commitment, and survey should be read together where they define the conveyed estate; a mismatch in one often changes the meaning of the others. - Where the PSA imposes a closing condition tied to delivery of a document set, missing or nonconforming delivery can be a condition failure rather than a mere drafting deviation. - Temporal issues matter: pre-closing certifications, bring-down updates, and post-closing undertakings should be tested against the date they speak as of and the date performance is due. - If a deliverable uses a threshold, coverage percentage, or schedule count, compare the document against that threshold before assessing any downstream waiver or cure path. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Open with a short executive summary that states the overall risk picture, the highest-severity issues, and whether any deviation appears capable of affecting closing, pricing, title, or enforceability. - Define the severity scale once at the top and apply it uniformly to every issue entry. - Organize the body by closing document, then by issue within that document; if one issue depends on another document, cross-reference both. - For every issue entry, include: - the closing document and section or exhibit reference, - the PSA provision or other controlling authority, - the deviation description, - the severity rating, - the relevant scale, threshold, or amount if one appears in the source materials, - the related document or clause that interacts with the deviation, - the practical consequence for the client, - the recommended corrective action. - Keep the report decision-oriented; do not stop at identification when a specific remedy or escalation path is apparent. - End with a concise action list that groups recommended fixes by responsible role and urgency tied to the transaction timeline. - Use the requested filename exactly: `closing-document-deviation-report.docx`.