Step 3 — Afternoon, find toxic clauses in a 20-page contract
Find RFP toxic clauses, draft a proposal deck, and translate contract SLA clauses into plain language. Cowork finds clauses buried near the end and conflicts across documents.
▶ What you learn — What it means to read a document to the end. And the ability to connect two conflicting numbers in different folders.
Afternoon. Two document tasks are waiting.
- Halcyon Energy RFP — EUR 2.6M, D-18. You still have not read the 20 pages.
- Kestrel Logistics contract renewal — You need to make Legal’s review readable for the delivery team.
3-1. Find RFP toxic clauses first
Scenario 6 · Core
📌 What is happening
The tender document is 20 pages, clauses §1–§14. The most dangerous RFP review mistake is reading only the front before starting the proposal. Toxic clauses are always near the back.
- 🎯 Expected output
- One table of unfavorable clauses — clause number · content · why it is risky
- 💡 Efficiency point
- For a person, extracting toxic clauses from a 20-page legal document takes 2–3 hours, and attention drops near the end. Cowork reads to the end with consistent attention.
- ⚠️ What to check
- Check whether §9.4 and §12.2 are identified. They are intentionally buried on pages 13 and 18.
Why not ask for 6 items at once — Overview, schedule, scoring, clauses, references, and documents make Cowork scan the document six times. Get the most important thing first, then ask only what you need.
In the Halcyon Energy RFP in the SharePoint 01_RFP folder, find only clauses that are unfavorable to us.
Check all the way to the back of the document and answer only as a 3-column table: clause number / content / why it is risky.
Do not create a file.
✅ Result check — The highlight of this step
| Clause | Content | Why it is toxic |
|---|---|---|
| §9.4 Limitation of liability | Supplier liability for indirect and consequential damages is unlimited, with no aggregate cap | Contract value is EUR 2.6M, but damages are unlimited |
| §12.2 Source code escrow | Source code is released if SLA is missed for 2 consecutive months | Puts an SLA miss on the same level as bankruptcy or business abandonment |
These two clauses are on pages 13 and 18 of a 20-page document. They are not in the summary or near the front. A tool that reads only the first 5 pages cannot find them.
Also check the scoring-table trap — RFP body §7.1 says Price 30 / Technical 45 / References 15 / ESG 10, but the separate file HAL_EvaluationCriteria.xlsx says Price 40 / Technical 35 / References 15 / ESG 10. They are different.
This is intentional. Ask: “Are the scoring weights in the RFP body the same as the scoring table file?” If it points out the mismatch, it compared two documents.
If you need the rest, ask one by one — “Tell me only the submission schedule and D-day for this RFP” / “Only the required-documents checklist as a table.”
3-2. Draft a proposal deck
Scenario 7
📌 What is happening
Now you need to turn the analysis into a customer-facing proposal while following the brand guide and slide master.
- 🎯 Expected output
- 6 PowerPoint slides — summary / pain points / proposal / expected outcomes / schedule / references
- 💡 Efficiency point
- The previous analysis remains in the session. It does not need to be read again. If you reference the brand guide, you get a draft that also follows the format.
- ⚠️ What to check
- Check whether it uses navy (#1B3A5C) and amber (#F2A900), and avoids prohibited gradients and 3D charts.
Fewer slides means less time — 12–15 slides take minutes. 6 slides are enough to check structure and design. If you like it, say “Expand it in the same style.”
Using the analysis you just made and the Aurora brand guide in 05_Templates,
create a 6-slide draft PPT proposal for Halcyon Energy.
One slide each: summary / Pain Point / proposal / expected outcomes / schedule / references. Keep text under 5 lines per slide.
✅ Result check
- Were 6 slides created?
- Were the brand colors applied?
- Were the toxic clauses found earlier reflected (as negotiation items)?
3-3. Translate contract SLA clauses into plain language
Scenario 8 · Core
📌 What is happening
You are renewing the Kestrel Logistics contract (USD 890,000 per year). The delivery team does not read legal language. Someone has to translate it.
- 🎯 Expected output
- A penalty table and breach-risk clauses flagged in chat
- 💡 Efficiency point
- The real work is not translation but comparison. It must compare contract-required numbers with actual performance, and those two are in different documents in different folders.
- ⚠️ What to check
- Check whether it finds the 99.9% vs 99.82% conflict on its own. Those numbers are not in the prompt.
From the Kestrel Logistics MSA renewal in 02_Contracts, summarize only the SLA penalty structure in plain language as a table.
Then compare it with our actual operational performance and flag any clauses we are currently at risk of breaching.
Do not create a Word document. Answer in chat.
✅ Result check — The second highlight
① SLA conflict
| Where | Number |
|---|---|
02_Contracts/KES_SLA_Appendix_A.docx |
99.9% availability commitment, 15% monthly fee credit if missed |
03_Project_Northstar/NS_StatusReport_W-1.docx |
Quarterly actual availability 99.82% |
99.82% < 99.9% — We are already in breach. The two numbers are in different folders, different documents, and neither mentions the other.
② Notification-deadline contradiction
| Where | Commitment |
|---|---|
KES_MSA_Renewal_v3.docx §11.3 |
Notify the customer of a breach within 24 hours |
KES_VendorRisk_CobaltCloud.docx |
Subcontractor Cobalt Cloud notifies us within 72 hours |
If the subcontractor tells us after 72 hours, we cannot notify the customer within 24 hours. It is a physically impossible commitment.
If ② does not appear — “Compare the personal-data breach notification deadline with the subcontractor contract too.”
What this step demonstrates
Consistent attention — People cannot read page 18 of a 20-page contract with the same focus as page 1. A 4 PM contract review is not the same quality as a 10 AM review. Cowork has no such difference.
And people must remember both documents to think of comparing them. Cowork opens both and checks.
What you verified in this step
- ✅ It reads a 20-page document to the end and finds toxic clauses near the back
- ✅ It detects scoring inconsistency between two documents by comparison
- ✅ It connects two numbers in different folders and points out a breach
- ✅ It carries analysis forward and repurposes it into another format (PPT)
Go to Step 4 — Incident response, finding the cause in one channel line.