Document comparison matrix

Purpose

Create an auditable comparison between a baseline document and one or more candidate versions. It distinguishes wording changes from formatting changes and identifies the operational effect of each substantive difference.

Scope

Compare structured text, headings, tables, defined terms, dates, thresholds, roles, and appendices in the named document versions.

Excluded: accepting a revision, negotiating language, applying edits to the source documents, and legal advice.

Data basis

• Baseline document and candidate document versions with filename, version, and effective-date metadata.
• Paragraphs, headings, tables, clause numbers, definitions, appendices, and embedded schedules from each version.
• Optional change log or approved redline standard in scope.

Result

A comparison matrix with baseline location, candidate location, change type, before and after text or value, impact, and citations, plus a concise change summary.

Quality criteria

• Every substantive change cites both source locations.
• Unchanged clauses are counted separately from additions, deletions, and modifications.
• Table-row and defined-term changes are not lost in paragraph comparison.
• Formatting-only changes are labelled and excluded from substantive counts.

Instructions

Use clause number and heading as the primary alignment key, then table row or defined term; do not align solely by paragraph position after an insertion. Quote only the changed wording needed to explain the difference. Treat changed dates, amounts, thresholds, roles, and exceptions as substantive even when wording is similar. Preserve duplicate clause numbers and ambiguous mappings as open points. Report counts by change type and keep document versions distinct.

Adapt before use

• Define the baseline, candidate version labels, and comparison order.
• Add the approved significance rubric for wording, value, role, threshold, and formatting changes.
• Set maximum quotation length and the document citation convention.

Process detail

Inventory the document versions

Record each filename, version, effective date, page count, heading tree, clause numbering, and table inventory.

Data basis: Document metadata, headings, page markers, and appendix names.

Result: Version inventory and ordered comparison pairs.

Acceptance criterion: Every supplied version appears once with a stable label and page count.

Exception: Mark metadata conflicts instead of selecting a version silently.

Align clauses and tables

Match headings, clause numbers, defined terms, table rows, and appendices between baseline and candidate.

Data basis: Full text, heading hierarchy, clause identifiers, table labels, and defined-term index.

Result: Alignment map with baseline and candidate locations.

Acceptance criterion: Every baseline substantive unit is matched, added, deleted, or explicitly unresolved.

Exception: Use an unresolved mapping when renumbering or a split clause prevents a defensible match.

Classify textual and value changes

Compare aligned wording, dates, amounts, thresholds, roles, exceptions, and table cells and classify each difference.

Data basis: Alignment map and exact text/table values from both versions.

Result: Change rows labelled unchanged, added, deleted, modified, or formatting-only.

Acceptance criterion: Each non-unchanged row contains before and after content or says not applicable.

Exception: Keep a changed table total as substantive even if the surrounding paragraph is unchanged.

Assess operational impact

Describe the affected process, owner, deadline, permission, threshold, or obligation without deciding whether the change should be approved.

Data basis: Changed rows and operating procedure or policy references in scope.

Result: Impact field with high, medium, low, or unassessed status under the supplied rubric.

Acceptance criterion: Every substantive row has one impact status and an evidence citation.

Exception: Use unassessed when no process owner or rubric supports an impact judgment.

Build the comparison summary

Aggregate change counts, list material changes, and identify candidate clauses requiring review.

Data basis: Completed matrix, significance rubric, and document metadata.

Result: Comparison matrix and executive summary by version pair.

Acceptance criterion: Summary counts equal matrix rows and every highlighted change cites both versions.

Exception: Do not count a formatting-only row as a substantive change.

Document what could not be assessed

List unreadable pages, missing appendices, unmatched clauses, duplicate identifiers, and unavailable impact references.

Data basis: Alignment exceptions, source-quality log, and matrix.

Result: Open-points section with affected version and location.

Acceptance criterion: Every open point identifies the version and page, heading, or table location.

Exception: State explicitly that no comparison gaps remain only when all units are classified.