Extract Scope Terms From Matter Plan

Skill: Extract Scope Terms from Matter Plan — Structured Extraction Report

1. Subject-matter triage

• Read the full engagement set before extracting any term; scope language is often split across the matter plan, engagement letter, budget, and related communications.
• Identify the document set first, then determine whether there is a later revision, addendum, amendment, or negotiated email chain that changes scope.
• Treat the task as both extraction and comparison: the output must surface each scope-defining term and the places where documents diverge.
• If the materials include a hierarchy or order-of-precedence clause, use it to frame which source governs each point of conflict.

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• Summarizing scope from only one source instead of cross-referencing the whole set.
• Missing later communications that modify or clarify scope before the formal documents were updated.
• Treating all scope language as equally operative without testing document hierarchy or temporal priority.
• Listing inconsistencies without saying which document appears controlling under the stated hierarchy.
• Failing to connect scope definitions to the budget, phase structure, or approval conditions that determine what work is actually authorized.
• Collapsing distinct categories of work into one general description and thereby hiding partial exclusions, conditions, or carve-outs.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• Outside counsel and engagement materials commonly allocate different functions across documents: one document may set relationship terms, another may define the workstream, and a budget or phase plan may constrain what is presently authorized.
• Scope creep is a central billing-risk concept: work performed outside the defined authorization may be disputed absent written approval or a clear amendment.
• Phase-based plans often make later work contingent on completion, review, or express client approval of earlier phases.
• Negotiation communications can matter if they record agreed changes; they should be checked for scope commitments not carried into the formal text.
• The governing analysis is document-based rather than abstract: identify the operative clause, the source hierarchy, and the consequence of any mismatch.
• When citing any legal or practice proposition in the report, identify the controlling authority as stated in the source materials or as the relevant governing rule or practice norm.

4. Analytical scaffolds

• Start by enumerating the source documents and their dates, versions, and apparent status before comparing terms.
• For each document, extract every clause that defines, limits, expands, conditions, or excludes scope, including phase gates, approval triggers, assumptions, carve-outs, staffing constraints, and budget-linked limits.
• Separate true scope terms from background recitals or administrative detail unless the language changes what work is authorized.
• Build a term-by-term crosswalk so the same concept is compared across documents rather than summarized globally.
• Where multiple sources address the same term, test whether they are consistent, partially overlapping, or in tension.
• For each tension, identify the apparent controlling source using the stated hierarchy, then flag any residual ambiguity that the hierarchy does not resolve.
• Review the budget or estimate against the phase structure and scope language to determine whether the planned resources align with the authorized work.
• If the materials contain approval or sign-off mechanics, capture those as scope conditions, not mere process notes.
• If a later document narrows or expands earlier language, note the change expressly and treat the later text as potentially superseding the earlier text on the addressed topic.
• Keep the analysis anchored in the words used in the materials; do not infer unstated scope from business context alone.

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

• Later-dated revisions, amendments, or confirmations may supersede earlier scope language for the topics they address.
• A document that is higher in the stated hierarchy may control on the subject it governs even if another document is more detailed on a different subject.
• Phase sequencing matters: a later phase may not be authorized until a prior milestone or client approval is satisfied.
• If the materials contain conflicting dates, version labels, or execution timing, resolve them before treating any clause as operative.
• If budget terms were updated after the underlying scope language, note whether the budget reflects the updated scope or lags behind it.

6. Output structure conventions

• Use a structured extraction table with fields that map each scope term to its source, location, and governance status.
• Include a separate inconsistency register that states the conflicting terms, the documents involved, the apparent control rule, and any unresolved ambiguity.
• Include a concise hierarchy note explaining which document type appears to govern which category of scope term.
• Include a budget alignment note where the materials permit comparison between authorized scope and allocated resources.
• Use a clear issue taxonomy such as: aligned, modified, inconsistent, conditional, or unresolved.
• Keep the report analytical rather than narrative; the reader should be able to trace each scope term back to a source location.
• File the deliverable under the name specified in the task instructions: scope-extraction-report.docx.