When contract intake and the business request disagree

An intake that says “No scope changes” can arrive beside a message asking about something new. Before treating it as routine, record what each source actually says. A newer message may describe a proposal; a newer draft may still carry old wording.

Keep the original sources and identify the version or date you used. Ask the business owner to confirm the intended work, while counsel identifies the legal questions and review that can proceed. You do not need to resolve every unknown before starting any review.

Fictional example: a company is renewing its agreement with a training provider. These are the only inputs supplied:

A. Intake submitted Monday

Renew four employee workshops. No scope changes.

B. Owner message sent Tuesday

Can partner staff join two sessions and receive recordings? Aim to start next Monday.

C. Draft v1 received Wednesday

Four live workshops for employees only. No recordings. Session dates are blank.

Audience: a proposed expansion

A and C describe employees. B asks about partner staff. Record this as a proposed change awaiting confirmation, not an agreed new audience. The draft does not yet describe the owner’s possible plan.

Recordings: asked about, not in the draft

B asks whether partner staff can receive recordings; C says no recordings. Ask whether recordings are required for this renewal and whether the provider has responded. Counsel can identify any terms that need review once the intended use is clear.

Timing: a target with missing dates

B names a desired start; C has blank dates. Ask which sessions need to happen when, and whether that timing has been agreed with the provider. A target in a message is not a confirmed schedule.

Do not replace “No scope changes” with a confident summary of B and discard A. Preserve the discrepancy and the owner’s eventual response so the reviewer can trace how the scope was decided.

Instead of returning the whole intake form, point to the exact difference and ask for the decision that changes the review:

The intake asks to renew four employee workshops with no scope changes, and draft v1 covers four employee-only workshops without recordings. Your later message asks whether partner staff can join two sessions and receive recordings. Are those required for this renewal, or a separate option to explore? Please send any provider response and confirm the target calendar dates.

Suppose the owner replies:

Keep this renewal to the four employee workshops, without recordings. Explore the partner sessions separately. We want the first employee session next Monday; the provider has not confirmed dates.

That answer clarifies the business request. It does not establish provider agreement, internal approval or legal clearance. Keep the unconfirmed schedule visible.

Attach A, B, draft v1 and the owner’s reply through your team’s approved channel. A useful cover note now reads:

Review now

Four live employee workshops, without recordings. Review draft v1 against that stated scope and the applicable agreement documents.

Keep separate

Partner attendance and recordings are a future option, not part of the current business request. Do not quietly add them to this draft.

Still unresolved

The first session is requested for next Monday; the provider has not confirmed the schedule. Name someone to obtain that confirmation. The current agreement or statement of work was not supplied; request it so counsel can compare the proposed renewal with the existing scope.

Ask counsel

Which review can proceed now, what documents or approvals are missing, and which points must be resolved before signature or performance? Ask counsel to identify needed drafting or negotiation, rather than treating the cover note as an instruction to approve.

Record the business owner’s scope confirmation separately from provider agreement, internal sign-off and counsel’s advice. Update the intake with a link to the confirmation; keep the earlier entry in its history. Before sending a document onward, check that its version matches the scope being reviewed.

If you need help reviewing or negotiating the agreement, find legal talent for the project.

Try the original three inputs with Lawtrades Agent, our AI assistant. Use its response as a comparison to check, not a source of new facts or approval.

Open the fictional example in Agent ↗

Opens an editable message in a new tab. Nothing is sent automatically. You can also select and copy the text below.

Compare these fictional training-renewal inputs. Intake, Monday: renew four employee workshops, no scope changes. Owner message, Tuesday: can partner staff join two sessions and receive recordings? Aim to start next Monday. Draft v1, Wednesday: four live employee-only workshops; no recordings; dates blank. Make a short discrepancy list citing each source. Separate stated facts, proposed changes and missing information. Draft one focused clarification for the business owner and a handoff for counsel. Do not pick a source as authoritative, invent approvals or infer legal rights. Show useful work first; do not ask me to fill out an intake form. Do not contact anyone or take external action.

A useful answer ties each gap to the intake, the owner message or the draft, keeps partner attendance and recordings as proposals, and flags the missing schedule. Reject invented confirmation or a conclusion that the latest source automatically wins. Then give it the fictional owner reply above and see which issues remain open.

Use only the fictional material for this exercise. For a real matter, follow your organization’s rules for sharing documents and give counsel the source packet and intended scope. The worked example here was written for this guide; it is not a customer record or a generated Agent result.

Related guide