A long document? Let AI make an excerpt with page numbers

I uploaded a document called [file name]. Before we summarize it,
describe what you actually see in it:

1. How many pages does it have and how is it structured — list
   the names of the main chapters or sections exactly as they
   appear in the document
2. What's on the first and last page (quote the first and last
   sentence verbatim)
3. How many tables and how many charts are in the document, and
   where are they
4. Are there footnotes, appendices, or annexes in the document?
5. Is the text readable, or are there passages that are hard for
   you to read (a scan, bad encoding, tables that fell apart)?
   Give specific page numbers.

Don't summarize anything yet, just describe what you have available.

Write an executive summary of the attached document [name].
Reader: [who will read this, e.g. leadership with no background
on the topic].
Purpose: [why they're reading it, e.g. to decide whether to
pursue the topic further].

Output structure, follow it exactly:

1. What the document is about — 3 sentences, no generalities
2. Ten main points. For each: the claim in one sentence,
   and in parentheses the page or chapter where it appears
3. Numbers and figures worth remembering — list them as:
   value, what it means, page
4. Deadlines and timelines mentioned in the document, sorted
   by date
5. Three passages I should read in the original, and why those
   specifically
6. What the document does NOT address, even though you'd expect
   it to

Write factually, no opening or closing filler phrases. Don't
evaluate the document, just convey it. Where you're not sure
of the location in the text, write “location not determined”
instead of guessing.

I'm facing a decision: [describe the decision in one sentence,
e.g. whether to sign a three-year framework agreement with
the supplier].
Criteria that matter to me: [price, risk of disruption,
flexibility, lock-in period — list your own 3-5].
What I already know and you don't need to repeat: [brief context].

Go through the attached document [name] and produce a decision
brief:

1. What in the document argues FOR — max 5 points, each with
   a reference to the text
2. What argues AGAINST — max 5 points, each with a reference
   to the text
3. Risks: what could go wrong, how the document addresses it
   (or doesn't), and how serious it is
4. Questions the document doesn't answer that I can't decide
   without — sorted by importance
5. What I should request from the other side before deciding

Don't give me a recommendation on how to decide. Give me the
material I'll use to decide myself. Work only from the document,
don't fill in business context that isn't in it.

I'm doing research on [topic] and need a comparable card from
each source. Here's the source [name].

Fill in this exact template, item by item.
Where a value isn't in the document, write “not stated” —
don't fill it in with a guess.

AUTHOR AND YEAR:
DOCUMENT TYPE: (original research / review / commentary /
marketing material / official statistics)
MAIN CLAIM: (2 sentences)
WHAT IT'S BASED ON: (data, sample, method, collection period)
KEY FINDINGS: (max 5 bullets, each with a number and page)
WHAT APPLIES TO [my topic]: (2-3 sentences)
LIMITATIONS THE AUTHOR ADMITS: (and on which page)
LIMITATIONS NOT ADMITTED BUT VISIBLE:
WHO PAID FOR IT / WHO PUBLISHED IT: (and whether it could bias
the conclusions)
QUOTABLE PASSAGES: (2 verbatim quotes with page numbers)

I'm attaching two documents: [A - name] and [B - name].
This is about [two proposals for the same job].

Don't summarize them individually. Give me a comparison table
where the rows are areas and the columns are Document A,
Document B, and the difference:

Areas to compare: [price and what it includes], [timelines],
[scope of delivery], [warranties and service], [penalties],
[termination], [what's included in the price vs. billed extra].

Below the table, add:
- the three most significant differences and why they matter
- what's in A but missing from B (and vice versa)
- places where the documents use the same word for different
  things
- what can't be compared because one of the documents doesn't
  cover it

For each row, note which part of the document the value comes
from. Where a value is missing, write “not stated” — don't
estimate or calculate it yourself.

This is part [number] of [total count] of the document [document
name], specifically [chapter / articles X-Y].
The whole document is about [topic] and what I need from it is
[purpose].

Process ONLY this part, don't speculate about the rest of the
document. Output exactly in this structure:

A) What this part is about — 2 sentences
B) Key claims — max 8 bullets, each with a page reference
C) All numbers, amounts, deadlines and dates from this part,
   as: value | what it means | page
D) Definitions of terms this part introduces
E) Cross-references: places where this part refers to another
   part of the document, an appendix, or an external regulation
F) Loose ends: things this part mentions but doesn't explain

Don't comment or evaluate anything. Where text is unreadable
or ambiguous, say so instead of guessing.

Here are the summaries of all [count] parts of the document
[name], each processed with the same template:

[paste all the part summaries, one after another]

Don't work with the original document now, work only with these
summaries. Build an overall picture out of them:

1. The document's main thread — how the parts connect, what
   the main argument or main structure is
2. The ten most important points from the whole document, each
   with a note on which part it comes from
3. All numbers and deadlines from the C sections merged into
   a single overview, sorted by date / size
4. Contradictions: places where parts of the document conflict
   with each other or where the same term is used differently —
   quote both versions
5. Unresolved cross-references: things one part points to
   elsewhere, but the referenced spot doesn't address it
6. What's missing from the document as a whole

Where the inputs are incomplete, say so — don't fill in the
missing content.

I'm attaching the contract [name]. I am the party [designation,
e.g. the client].

Pull out ALL obligations from the contract and return them as
a table with columns: who | what they must do | by when / how
often | contract article | what happens if not fulfilled.

Rules:
- split the table into two parts: my obligations first, then
  the other party's obligations
- transcribe deadlines exactly as they appear in the contract,
  including what they're counted from (from signing, from
  delivery, from notice)
- distinguish one-time obligations from recurring ones
- list separately any obligations that survive after the
  contract ends (confidentiality, record-keeping, non-compete)
- where an obligation is worded vaguely (“without undue delay,”
  “within a reasonable time”), flag it and quote the exact
  wording

Don't interpret anything, just extract. Where you're not sure,
quote the text and say what's ambiguous about it.

Go through the attached contract [name] like an experienced
person reviewing contracts on behalf of the party [client /
supplier / employee / tenant].

Contract type: [framework services agreement].
Subject: [briefly]. Value: [rough figure].

Return three lists:

A) Clauses that are unbalanced against me — for each: exact
   wording quoted, article, what makes it unbalanced, and what
   a more balanced version would look like
B) Clauses that are unusual for this type of contract — quote,
   article, how it differs from standard practice
C) What's missing from the contract that you'd expect for this
   type

Sort each list from most to least serious.
For each item, estimate the impact: high / medium / low,
and explain why.

Don't assess legal validity or compliance — I'll leave that to
a lawyer. Work only from the text of the contract.

I'm attaching two versions of the same document:
[OLD - name, date] and [NEW - name, date].
I am the party [designation] and this is a [document type].

Compare them by clause, not by page — articles may have been
renumbered or moved.

Give me a table of changes with columns:
article (old / new) | old wording (quote) | new wording (quote) |
what actually changed | who the change favors | severity

Below the table, add:
1. Changes that alter the substance of the relationship — and why
2. Changes that look cosmetic but have a real-world impact
   (a change from “may” to “must,” a deadline shifted by a few
   days, swapping “without undue delay” for a specific number
   of days, or the other way around)
3. What was in the old version and is entirely missing from
   the new one
4. What's newly added in the new version and wasn't in the old one
5. Changes that really are just wording

Quote exact wording so I can double-check. Don't rely on your
memory of what a typical version of this kind of contract
looks like.

Based on your comparison, I found these changes: [list what
you found].

Now go through both versions one more time and answer just one
question: is there a change this list doesn't capture?

Focus especially on:
- numeric figures (amounts, percentages, day counts, deadlines)
- references to other articles and appendices (article number
  changes)
- term definitions at the start of the document
- appendices and their content
- negation: an inserted or removed “not,” “without,” “except for”

If you don't find any further changes, say so. Don't invent
changes just to have something to report.

I'm attaching the document [name] and the summary that was made
from it:

[paste the summary]

Your task is NOT to summarize. Your task is to find what got
lost in the summary. Go through the document and list:

1. Substantial claims from the document that aren't in the
   summary at all — for each, give the page and why you think
   it matters
2. Numbers, deadlines, or amounts from the document missing
   from the summary
3. Conditions and exceptions: places where the document says
   “this applies if / unless / except when” and the summary
   states it without the condition
4. Places where the summary claims something more strongly than
   the document does (the document says “suggests,” the summary
   says “proves”)
5. Places where the summary claims something that isn't in the
   document at all

Sort by severity. For each point, quote the relevant place in
the document so I can verify it.

Here's the summary of the document [name] that I'm bringing to
[a leadership meeting / a supplier negotiation].

[paste the summary]

Generate 12 questions I might get asked about this document —
ones that ask about a detail, a number, a condition, or a
consequence. Split them into:
A) questions my summary already answers
B) questions the summary doesn't answer — and where in the
   document I should look for them

Don't help me with the answers. Just the questions.