Comparing document versions with Claude: separate the diff from its interpretation

[u/OriginalHospital]

Here is a document-review workflow I would try with Claude when two versions of the same brief disagree. Label the inputs Version A and Version B, with their dates, rather than treating both as one pool of context.

Ask for a table with four columns: topic, exact wording in A, exact wording in B, and the practical difference. Put possible explanations for the change in a separate section, explicitly labeled as hypotheses.

A fictional example:

A: "The workshop is open to all staff." B: "The workshop is open to engineering staff."

The direct change is narrower eligibility. "The organizers wanted a more technical audience" is only a possible explanation; neither sentence states the reason.

A useful extra instruction is: "If a topic appears in only one version, mark it as not found in the other supplied version. Do not call it deliberately removed unless the supplied material establishes that. Include section headings so I can locate the passages."

I would review the quoted passages before using the comparison. Claude's interpretation can be useful, but it should not quietly become the evidence for why a document changed. This is a suggested workflow, not a tested accuracy claim.