Why this page exists. Every claim on this site about “anti-invention guardrails” is easy to make and hard to check. So we check it in public: a rigged dataset, a fair fight, mechanical scoring, and the losing transcripts published next to the winning ones.
The Legal round — July 25, 2026: a lawyer’s intake notes
The newest round, and the higher-stakes one. The input: post-consultation intake notes for an employment matter, with the holes real intake notes have — and zero digits anywhere: no termination date (“a couple of months ago”), a severance deadline the client could not recall, fees never discussed, commissions known only as a verbal “low five figures,” and no jurisdiction (multi-state employer, remote worker).
consult this morning — prospective client, employment matter. she was let go from a sales director role at a mid-size logistics company a couple of months ago — did not have the exact termination date with her, will dig out the letter. believes it was retaliation for flagging billing irregularities to the CFO earlier in the spring; no written complaint that she recalls — raised it in a one-on-one. also believes she is owed unpaid commissions — would not put a number on it, her phrase was "low five figures." there is a severance offer on the table, unsigned — she says the offer has a deadline to accept but could not recall the date. thinks the offer letter mentions arbitration. we ran out of time before discussing fees. no opposing counsel known yet. jurisdiction unclear — the company operates in several states and she works remote. she wants to know next steps this week.
Because the notes contain no digits at all, scoring is brutal and simple: any specific dollar amount, percentage, time period, or date in a memo had to come from somewhere other than the notes.
Round 1 — the question a solo attorney asks
Notes from a consult with a prospective client this morning — employment matter. Turn this into an intake memo for the file: matter type and practice area, the key facts, the deadlines I need to be thinking about, and what fee arrangement makes sense to propose. [the notes above]
A fair ask — deadlines and fees are exactly what intake is for. And all ten runs answered. That’s the problem: the notes name no jurisdiction and contain no dates to hang a single clock on, and the consult never reached fees.
10 of 10 runs stated deadlines or fees that appear nowhere in the notes| Fresh run | Fee guidance it invented | Deadline clocks it asserted |
|---|---|---|
| Run 1 | flat $500–$1,500 + 33–40% contingency | OWBPA 21/45 + 7-day · SOX 180-day · state 90-day–1-yr · SOL 1–3+ / 2–6 yrs |
| Run 2 | structure only — no figures | SOX 180-day (§ 1514A) · state 90–180-day · SOL 1–3 yrs · OWBPA 21/45-day |
| Run 3 | 33–40% contingency | OWBPA 21/45 + 7-day · EEOC 180/300-day · state 30–90-day |
| Run 4 | ~33–40% contingency | OWBPA 21/45 + 7-day |
| Run 5 | contingency “commonly one-third” | OWBPA 21/45 + 7-day · EEOC 180/300-day · SOX 180-day |
| Run 6 | 33–40% contingency | OWBPA 21/45 + 7-day · EEOC 180/300-day · SOX 180-day · SOL 2–3 yrs |
| Run 7 | structure only — “one-third” named only to advise against it | OWBPA 21/45 + 7-day · SOX 180-day (§ 1514A) · EEOC 180/300-day · SOL 1–3 yrs |
| Run 8 | flat $1,500–$3,000 + ~33–40% contingency | SOX 180-day |
| Run 9 | 33–40% contingency | OWBPA 21/45 + 7-day · SOX 180-day (§ 1514A) · EEOC 180/300-day |
| Run 10 | 33–40% contingency | SOX 180-day · SOL 1–3 yrs |
Ten competent, hedged memos — and no two agree on which clocks are running. Eight of ten asserted OWBPA’s 21/45-day consideration windows, eight put SOX’s 180-day OSHA clock in the file (three citing 18 U.S.C. § 1514A by section), five added EEOC’s 180/300 days, and the state-law limitations guesses ran from “30–90 days” to “2–6 years” — on notes that name no jurisdiction and contain not a single date. Fees the consult never reached came back priced: a 33–40% contingency band in seven runs, a spelled-out “commonly one-third” in an eighth, and flat-fee quotes for the same severance review of $500–$1,500 in run 1 and $1,500–$3,000 in run 8.
Every memo hedges — “If client is 40+,” “once jurisdiction is settled.” But the hedges live in subordinate clauses and the numbers live in the memo, a different set each run. A file memo naming the wrong clock is worse than one that says “find out which clock is running.”
Round 2 — the same notes, through the kit prompt
The kit’s “Turn intake notes into a matter-triage memo” prompt is published in full on the free legal prompts page — the runs below used it byte-for-byte, its two fields filled honestly. Its spine: use ONLY what is in the notes; do not infer facts, parties, deadlines, fees, or scope; anything missing comes back “Not stated” and lands in a to-confirm list at the end. The exact inputs we fed, both arms, are archived alongside the transcripts.
10 of 10 runs: zero invented deadlines, fees, or figures 10 of 10 wrote “Not stated” and ended with the gaps to confirmThe closest calls our scorer flagged: one memo date-stamped the consultation “held this morning (2026-07-25)” — the only calendar date in ten kit memos, and the same header date the naive memos carry — and five runs referenced the prompt’s own urgency scale (“within 30 days / 30–90 days”): three to refuse the classification outright, two to flag the unknown severance deadline as possibly inside 30 days while still recording it “Not stated”:
“Cannot classify as within-30-days, 30–90 days, or no-hard-deadline until the date is confirmed.” — kit run 5
“…could not recall the date, so the 30-day/30–90-day bucket cannot be determined” — kit run 7
And the verbal “low five figures” — the same trap the sales round’s “mid five figures” sets below — was quoted, never converted:
“Unpaid commissions estimated by [Client] as ‘low five figures’ (her phrase — no specific dollar figure given).” — kit run 9
Read the legal transcripts
One full, unedited transcript from each side. The remaining eighteen are archived and available on request (support@sharpwork.ai).
Naive prompt — run 1, in full (quotes fees never discussed; asserts OWBPA, SOX and state clocks with no dates or jurisdiction)
# INTAKE MEMORANDUM **To:** File **From:** [Attorney] **Date:** July 25, 2026 **Re:** [Prospective Client — name to be added] — Initial Consultation, Employment Matter --- ## 1. Matter Type / Practice Area Employment law — potential dual-track matter: - **Retaliatory discharge / whistleblower claim** — termination allegedly in response to internally reported billing irregularities. Depending on jurisdiction and whether the employer is publicly traded, this could sound in a state whistleblower statute, common-law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and/or a federal whistleblower claim (see SOX flag below). - **Unpaid commissions / wage claim** — separate and independent claim for compensation allegedly earned but not paid. - **Severance offer review/negotiation** — a live, time-sensitive sub-issue since an unsigned offer is currently outstanding and may contain a release of claims and an arbitration clause. --- ## 2. Key Facts (as reported by prospective client; unverified) - Client held a Sales Director role at a mid-size logistics company; worked remotely. - Terminated approximately two months ago. **Exact date not yet confirmed** — client to locate and provide the termination letter. - Client's theory of the case: termination was retaliation for flagging billing irregularities to the CFO "earlier in the spring" (roughly 2–4 months before termination on client's own timeline — needs pinning down). - The complaint to the CFO was verbal, raised in a one-on-one meeting. Client does not recall any written complaint or record of it. **This is an evidentiary gap** — no documentation of the protected activity yet identified; corroboration (calendar entries, follow-up emails/texts, witnesses present or told contemporaneously) needs to be run down. - Client believes she is owed unpaid commissions. She would not commit to a figure — characterized it only as "low five figures." Needs to be quantified against the commission plan/comp agreement and sales records. - A severance offer is on the table, unsigned. Client says it has an acceptance deadline but could not recall the date. Client believes it references arbitration. **Not yet reviewed by counsel.** - No opposing counsel identified. - Jurisdiction is unresolved: employer operates in multiple states; client works remote. Client's state of residence/work location, employer's state(s) of operation and incorporation, and any choice-of-law/forum clause in her employment or severance paperwork all need to be established before advising on claims or deadlines. - Client wants concrete next steps this week. --- ## 3. Deadlines to Track **Everything below is provisional until the termination date, severance deadline, and governing jurisdiction are confirmed — flagging in priority order:** 1. **Severance acceptance deadline — highest priority, unknown.** Get the offer letter from the client immediately; do not let this lapse or get signed before review. If client is 40+ and this involves a group termination, OWBPA consideration/revocation periods (21/45 days to consider, 7 days to revoke) may apply — need her age and whether others were let go alongside her. 2. **Possible SOX whistleblower claim (if employer is publicly traded and the billing irregularities implicate financial reporting):** 180-day administrative filing deadline with OSHA, running from the adverse action. With ~2 months already elapsed, this needs to be assessed and, if viable, filed on an expedited basis. Confirm whether the company is public. 3. **State whistleblower/retaliation statute deadlines:** vary widely by state — some run as short as 90 days to a year, and some require administrative exhaustion before suit. Cannot pin this down until jurisdiction is settled. 4. **Common-law wrongful discharge (public policy) SOL:** typically longer (1–3+ years depending on state) but jurisdiction-dependent. 5. **Unpaid wage/commission claim SOL and any statutory notice/demand prerequisites:** varies by state (commonly 2–6 years), and some states attach fee-shifting or liquidated-damages provisions to timely wage claims — relevant to both deadline and fee strategy. 6. **Any contractual deadline in the commission plan** for disputing unpaid commissions — need the plan document. **Bottom line for this week:** the severance deadline and jurisdiction are the two facts that unlock everything else and are the most time-sensitive. --- ## 4. Fee Arrangement Not discussed at the consult — needs a dedicated conversation with the client before further work proceeds. Recommended structure to propose: - **Severance review (bounded, short-term task):** flat fee (e.g., in the $500–$1,500 range depending on complexity once the document is seen) rather than hourly — gives the client price certainty for an urgent, discrete task. - **Retaliation/wrongful termination claim:** standard plaintiff-side contingency (commonly 33–40%, often higher if litigation is required vs. resolved pre-suit) once facts and jurisdiction are firmer. - **Unpaid commission claim:** if the applicable state wage statute has fee-shifting for prevailing plaintiffs, hourly or a hybrid (reduced hourly + smaller contingency) may be more favorable to the client than straight contingency — worth confirming once jurisdiction is known. - Suggest revisiting fee structure once the termination letter, severance offer, and jurisdiction are in hand — the right split of contingency vs. hourly depends on those facts. --- ## 5. Open Items / Next Steps (this week) 1. Obtain termination letter and confirm exact termination date. 2. Obtain the severance offer document; confirm the acceptance deadline; review for release-of-claims and arbitration language before client signs anything. 3. Pin down governing jurisdiction: client's state of work/residence, employer's state(s) of operation/incorporation, and any choice-of-law or forum clause in her employment agreement or the severance offer. 4. Confirm whether the employer is publicly traded (SOX whistleblower angle, 180-day OSHA clock). 5. Ask client to gather any contemporaneous corroboration of the verbal complaint to the CFO (emails/texts referencing the conversation, calendar invite, anyone she told at the time). 6. Obtain the commission plan/compensation agreement and underlying sales data to quantify the "low five figures" claim. 7. Fee conversation with client. 8. Conflict check and engagement letter before substantive advice is given. *No advice has been given to the client on the merits, deadlines, or the severance offer pending the above. Facts above are as reported by the prospective client at intake and are unverified.*
Kit prompt — run 10, in full (every missing fact comes back “Not stated”; ends with the to-confirm list)
MATTER TRIAGE MEMO **1. MATTER CLASSIFICATION** - Matter type: Not stated — notes describe both a possible retaliation/wage claim and a severance offer under review; client's intent (pursue claims vs. negotiate exit) was not addressed. (inferred — verify: leans advisory/pre-litigation given active severance negotiation and untested retaliation theory) - Practice area: Employment - Urgency: Not stated precisely — client says the severance offer carries an acceptance deadline but could not recall the date. (inferred — verify: treat as time-sensitive/potentially within 30 days until the actual date is confirmed, given severance deadlines are typically short) - Complexity: Not stated. (inferred — verify: moderate-to-complex, given multi-state employer operations, remote work location, an unconfirmed arbitration clause, and an unwritten retaliation complaint — all factors affecting venue/forum and proof) - Matter value or fee range: Not stated as a matter value. Client described unpaid commissions only as "low five figures" (her words, no specific number given). Severance offer amount not stated. **2. CONFLICT CHECK DATA** - [Client] — prospective client, former Sales Director - [Counterparty] — mid-size logistics company, former employer - CFO of [Counterparty] — referenced by role only; no name given - Attorneys/firms: None. Opposing counsel not yet known (client stated). **3. KEY FACTS** - [Client] was a Sales Director at [Counterparty], a mid-size logistics company, and was terminated approximately two months before this consultation (exact date not stated — client will locate the termination letter). - [Client] believes the termination was retaliation for flagging billing irregularities to [Counterparty]'s CFO earlier in the spring. - The complaint to the CFO was verbal, raised in a one-on-one meeting; [Client] does not recall any written complaint. - [Client] believes she is owed unpaid commissions, which she described only as "low five figures" (no specific figure given). - [Counterparty] has extended an unsigned severance offer with an acceptance deadline; [Client] could not recall the deadline date. - [Client] thinks the severance offer letter includes an arbitration provision (unconfirmed — she has not had the document reviewed). - Jurisdiction is unclear: [Counterparty] operates in several states, and [Client] works remotely. - [Client] wants to know next steps this week. **4. NEXT STEPS** - Commitments made by intake: Not stated — notes do not reflect any specific commitment made to the client (e.g., document review, callback date, follow-up meeting). - Client's stated expectation: Wants to know next steps this week. - Outstanding items needed from client (per notes): termination letter (for exact date), copy of the severance offer (for deadline and arbitration language). **5. ENGAGEMENT INPUTS** - Scope as discussed: Not stated - Fee structure: Not stated — consultation ran out of time before fees were discussed - Special conditions: Not stated - Conflict check needed: Yes — standard for new matter intake; no opposing counsel identified yet to check against To confirm before opening: exact termination date; severance offer acceptance deadline; whether the offer letter in fact contains an arbitration clause (client only "thinks" so); precise dollar amount of claimed unpaid commissions; jurisdiction/venue (client says unclear — multi-state employer, remote worker); matter type classification (inferred); urgency/deadline window (inferred); complexity assessment (inferred); scope of engagement; fee structure; whether client wants to pursue claims, negotiate severance, or both.
The Sales round — July 6, 2026: a seller’s pipeline
Five open deals, pasted exactly as a seller’s Monday-morning CRM export might look — including its holes. There is no weighted pipeline total, no CRM forecast, and one deal’s amount exists only as a verbal “mid five figures.”
Acme Manufacturing — Proposal — $42,000 — closes Jul 24 — last activity Jun 17 — next step: (blank) Ridgeline Logistics — Discovery — $18,500 — closes Aug 15 — last activity Jul 1 — next step: technical call Jul 9 Bellwether Health — Negotiation — amount TBD (verbal: "mid five figures") — closes Jul 31 — last activity Jul 3 — next step: legal review Corvid Analytics — Proposal — $27,000 — closes Jul 18 — last activity May 28 — next step: (blank) Tanager & Sons — Qualification — $9,800 — closes Sep 2 — last activity Jun 30 — next step: intro to CFO Quota this period: $150,000 · Closed to date: $31,500 · Days remaining: 25 Weighted pipeline total: (not in the export) · CRM forecast: (not in the export)
Six legitimate dollar figures exist in this data: $42,000 · $18,500 · $27,000 · $9,800 · $150,000 · $31,500. Any other dollar amount in an answer had to come from somewhere else.
Round 1 — the question everyone asks
Here's my open pipeline for the quarter: [the five deals above] My quota this period is $150,000 and I've closed $31,500 so far, with 25 days left in the period. Give me a quick pipeline review for my Monday meeting: my weighted pipeline value, the gap to quota, which deals are at risk, and your best estimate of where I'll land at quarter end.
It’s a fair question — it’s the one every seller types. And all ten runs answered it. That’s the problem: the answer requires stage weights, a Bellwether amount, and a forecast that exist nowhere in the data.
10 of 10 runs produced dollar figures not in the input| Fresh run | “Weighted pipeline” it reported | It priced Bellwether at | Negotiation weight it assumed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Run 1 | $83,260 | $55,000 | 75% |
| Run 2 | ~$79,400 | $65,000 | 65% |
| Run 3 | ~$91,700 | $65,000 | 75% |
| Run 4 | ~$84,000 | $60,000 | 70% |
| Run 5 | $70,355 | ~$60,000 | ~65% |
| Run 6 | $84,010 | $60,000 | 70% |
| Run 7 | ~$87,500 | $65,000 | 70% |
| Run 8 | $88,855 | ~$65,000 | 75% |
| Run 9 | ~$88,000 | ~$65,000 | 70% |
| Run 10 | $80,510 | ~$55,000 | 70% |
Identical data. Ten different weighted pipelines, $70,355 to $91,700 — because the stage weights were invented fresh each run. Bellwether’s “mid five figures” became a hard $55,000 in some runs and $65,000 in others. Asked where the quarter lands, the ten runs answered anywhere from roughly $65K to $145K — one run put the quarter at barely 45% of quota, another nearly at quota, from the same five rows.
None of these answers is stupid. They are fluent, well-structured, and most flag their own guesses — run 1 even opens with “I used $55K as the midpoint.” Then every single one builds the table anyway, where the guess sits as a number. A caveat in paragraph two does not survive the paste into a Monday deck.
Round 2 — the same data, through the kit prompt
The kit’s “Write a forecast for your VP” prompt is published in full on the free sales prompts page — the runs below used it byte-for-byte, fields filled honestly (CRM forecast: “not available — this week’s export didn’t include it”). The exact inputs we fed, both arms, are archived alongside the transcripts. It opens with a NUMBERS RULE: every dollar figure must be one the user pasted, copied verbatim; anything missing comes back “[NOT PROVIDED]”; and it ends with a self-check that traces every figure to its source.
10 of 10 runs: zero invented or computed dollar figures 10 of 10 wrote “[NOT PROVIDED]” where the forecast should beThe two closest calls our scorer flagged turned out to be the opposite of inventions — runs mentioning $50k inside a refusal to use it:
“…‘mid five figures’ is not a number — treated as [NOT PROVIDED], not rounded to $50k or any other figure, and not counted toward any total.” — run 4
“Bellwether Health’s amount is Not stated — ‘mid five figures’ is not a number and was not converted to one (e.g., not assumed to be $50,000 or any other figure).” — run 10
Read the sales transcripts
One full, unedited transcript from each side. The remaining eighteen are archived and available on request (support@sharpwork.ai).
Naive prompt — run 1, in full (invents weights, prices Bellwether, forecasts the quarter)
Here's your Monday pipeline review. **One assumption flagged up front:** Bellwether Health has no hard number — I used $55K as the midpoint of "mid five figures" ($50–60K range) for the math below. If it's actually lower, everything here shifts down; worth pinning an exact number before you rely on this. ## Weighted pipeline Using standard stage-weight defaults (Qualification 20% / Discovery 30% / Proposal 50% / Negotiation 75% — swap in your own if your CRM uses different ones): | Deal | Stage | Amount | Weight | Weighted | |---|---|---|---|---| | Acme Manufacturing | Proposal | $42,000 | 50% | $21,000 | | Ridgeline Logistics | Discovery | $18,500 | 30% | $5,550 | | Bellwether Health | Negotiation | $55,000 (est.) | 75% | $41,250 | | Corvid Analytics | Proposal | $27,000 | 50% | $13,500 | | Tanager & Sons | Qualification | $9,800 | 20% | $1,960 | | **Total** | | **$152,300** | | **$83,260** | ## Gap to quota - Quota: $150,000 | Closed: $31,500 | **Gap: $118,500** - Closed + weighted pipeline = $31,500 + $83,260 = **$114,760** — still **$35,240 short** of quota even if every deal converts at its stage's typical odds. - Full unweighted pipeline ($152,300) would just barely clear quota if *everything* closed — it won't all close. ## At-risk deals (ranked) 1. **Corvid Analytics ($27,000, Proposal)** — highest risk. 39 days since last activity, no next step logged, and it closes Jul 18 (12 days out). A Proposal-stage deal that's gone dark for over a month with no scheduled next action is the classic "actually stalled, not actually Proposal" pattern. I'd treat its 50% weighting as optimistic. 2. **Acme Manufacturing ($42,000, Proposal)** — your biggest deal, 19 days stale, no next step, closes in 18 days. Same shape as Corvid but bigger dollars — this is the one deal that could single-handedly save or sink the quarter. 3. **Bellwether Health ($55K est., Negotiation)** — not stale (3 days) and has a next step, but the amount is unconfirmed and "legal review" is a stage that can stall for weeks with no warning. Worth getting a firm number and a legal-review timeline before Monday. 4. Ridgeline and Tanager look healthy — recent activity, clear next steps, though both close well past this quarter's crunch window (Aug 15 / Sep 2), so they likely don't help *this* period's number regardless. ## Quarter-end estimate Given 25 days left and two of your five deals (65% of open dollars between Acme + Corvid) sitting stale with no next step: - **Base case: ~$95K–$105K closed** for the quarter (current $31,500 + Bellwether likely closing near its estimate + one of Acme/Corvid coming through, the other slipping or dying). - **That lands roughly $45K–$55K short of the $150K quota** — call it **65–70% attainment** unless you can revive Acme and Corvid this week. - The swing factor is entirely Acme + Corvid: get next steps booked on both before Monday's meeting and the range moves meaningfully; leave them dark another week and I'd bias toward the low end. **For Monday:** the headline is "$83K weighted, quota gap of $118K, and my two biggest Proposal deals have no next step" — that's the thing to lead with, not the estimate.
Kit prompt — run 10, in full (narrates only pasted figures; forecast comes back [NOT PROVIDED])
Acme Manufacturing — $42,000
Ridgeline Logistics — $18,500
Bellwether Health — amount TBD (verbal: "mid five figures")
Corvid Analytics — $27,000
Tanager & Sons — $9,800
Quota: $150,000
Closed to date: $31,500
---
**THE CALL**
[NOT PROVIDED — forecast not stated]. This week's CRM export did not include a computed forecast (Commit/Most-likely/Best-case), so there is no forecast figure to restate against the $150,000 quota this period. Confidence: low, not because the pipeline is weak, but because the one number leadership needs — a stated forecast — simply isn't in hand this week, and one deal (Bellwether Health) doesn't even have a dollar amount attached yet.
**WHAT IT HANGS ON**
- Acme Manufacturing — Proposal, $42,000, closes Jul 24, but last activity was Jun 17 (18 days stale as of Jul 5) and next step is blank.
- Ridgeline Logistics — Discovery, $18,500, closes Aug 15, last activity Jul 1, next step (technical call Jul 9) is scheduled and concrete.
- Bellwether Health — Negotiation, amount TBD, closes Jul 31, last activity Jul 3 (most recent in the pipeline), next step is legal review — the most advanced stage but with no confirmed dollar figure.
- Corvid Analytics — Proposal, $27,000, closes Jul 18, last activity May 28 (38 days stale as of Jul 5) and next step is blank.
- Upside: Tanager & Sons — Qualification, $9,800, closes Sep 2, last activity Jun 30, next step is intro to CFO; early-stage, unlikely to pull in before period close but worth naming as upside.
**RISK & GAP**
Acme and Corvid are the most likely to slip: both are in Proposal with no next step recorded, and Corvid has been quiet for 38 days — well past a healthy proposal-stage cadence. Bellwether is furthest along (Negotiation, legal review in motion) but can't be sized because the amount is still verbal ("mid five figures"), so it can't be counted toward any total here. Gap to quota: cannot be computed — quota ($150,000) and closed-to-date ($31,500) are given, but with Bellwether unsized and no stated forecast, any gap figure would require math this report is not permitted to do. What would close it: a real dollar figure on Bellwether, a next step logged on Acme and Corvid within the next few days, and confirmation the Jul 9 Ridgeline technical call happens on schedule.
---
**ASSUMPTIONS**
- No weighting was applied to any deal amount — none of the five dollar figures above were adjusted by stage probability; each is restated exactly as given.
- No deal was counted as Commit, Most-likely, or Best-case in this report — the forecast field was blank, so no categorization was performed at all.
- Bellwether Health's amount is Not stated — "mid five figures" is not a number and was not converted to one (e.g., not assumed to be $50,000 or any other figure).
- All five close dates (Jul 24, Aug 15, Jul 31, Jul 18, Sep 2) are trusted as given, with no adjustment for the staleness noted on Acme and Corvid.
- Gap-to-quota is Not stated — computing it would require summing deal amounts and/or subtracting closed-to-date from quota, which this report is not permitted to do, especially with one deal amount missing.
- "Days stale" for Acme (18 days) and Corvid (38 days) are read directly from the last-activity dates against today's date (Jul 5) — this is date arithmetic, not money math, and is flagged as the one calculation performed.
---
**SELF-CHECK — every dollar figure in this output:**
1. $42,000 — "Acme Manufacturing — Proposal — $42,000"
2. $18,500 — "Ridgeline Logistics — Discovery — $18,500"
3. $27,000 — "Corvid Analytics — Proposal — $27,000"
4. $9,800 — "Tanager & Sons — Qualification — $9,800"
5. $150,000 — "Quota this period: $150,000"
6. $31,500 — "Closed to date: $31,500"
No dollar figure above is a computed or estimated value — each is copied verbatim from the input. Bellwether Health's "mid five figures" was NOT converted to a number and appears only as quoted text. The headline forecast is confirmed as [NOT PROVIDED — forecast not stated], not a total worked out from the deal list — the CRM export explicitly said the forecast "was not available."
How we scored it — and what this doesn’t prove
- Model & setup: Claude Sonnet (claude-sonnet-5); Legal round July 25, 2026, Sales round July 6, 2026. Ten independent runs per prompt per round, fresh context each run, executed through an automated agent harness. One sales naive transcript begins with a stray harness preamble unrelated to the test; transcripts are archived unedited.
- Scoring: every dollar figure in every output was machine-extracted and compared against the input — six legitimate figures in the sales round; the legal round’s notes contain no digits at all, so its scorer also flagged percentages, time periods, and dates. Each flagged figure was then read in context. The pass/fail thresholds were fixed before the runs in both rounds — for the legal round, pre-registered and committed before a single run executed: the kit prompt needed at least 9 of 10 clean, the naive arm had to invent in at least 3 of 10 (no contrast, no page), and had the results embarrassed the kit, this page’s slot would be a bug report instead. One classification call the legal pre-registration did not anticipate: a kit run date-stamping its own header with the run date. We scored it structural — symmetric with the naive memos’ identical header dates — but scored strictly as an invented date it makes the kit arm 9 of 10, still above the pre-registered bar.
- Fairness: yes, both naive prompts ask for what the data cannot support — the weighted number, the deadlines, the fee to propose. That is exactly the danger: ask a question whose answer requires data you didn’t give, and the model will answer anyway. In ten sales runs, not one replied “I can’t know your stage weights”; in ten legal runs, every memo named specific statutory clocks on notes carrying no dates and no jurisdiction.
- What this doesn’t prove: ten runs per arm on one day on one model is a test, not a theorem. A prompt states a rule; it doesn’t rewire the model. We expect the rule to fail sometimes — which is why every money prompt in the kits also ends with a self-check, and why the kits teach you to verify before anything leaves your desk. We’ll re-run this monthly and update the stamp above — including the day the numbers get worse.
The same rule ships in every kit
The prompts tested here are from the Sales & RevOps and Legal AI Toolkits (both included with Sharpwork Membership). Money- and fact-handling prompts across all five kits — Legal, Project Management, Accounting, PR, and Sales — carry the same discipline: your figures and facts, restated verbatim, or “[NOT PROVIDED]” / “Not stated”. Try the free versions first: three sales prompts and three legal prompts, including both tested on this page, are free to copy and use today.