PromptBase
PromptBase SelectGet Select
Close icon
General
Home
Marketplace
Create
Hire
Login
Chat
Sell
Explore

Prompt Details

Model
Chat - (gpt-5.6)
Token size
4,198
Example input
[DILIGENCE FINDINGS]: Finding 1: The HR workstream reported that the target's employee retention records are governed by a 7-year retention period under its internal HR Data Retention Policy. Finding 2: The privacy workstream noted that the Employee Privacy Notice states that employee personal data is retained only for the period necessary for the stated purpose or as otherwise required by applicable retention requirements. Finding 3: The HR Operations Procedure appears to require retention of certain employee records for 3 years. Reviewer note: These findings may describe different record categories or retention requirements, but the current issue list does not establish whether they concern the same underlying records. [SUPPORTING EVIDENCE]: Source 1: HR Data Retention Policy — section addressing employee personnel records — 7-year retention period. Source 2: Employee Privacy Notice — section addressing employee personal data retention. Source 3: HR Operations Procedure — section addressing retention of employee records — 3-year period. Affected documents: HR personnel files, employee privacy documentation, HR operational records. The supplied materials do not identify the specific categories of employee records covered by each period. [REVIEW CONTEXT]: Employment / HR diligence workstream consolidation. The objective is to determine whether the findings should be treated as one underlying issue or as separate retention-related findings. Preserve the distinction between documented retention requirements and reviewer interpretation. Do not determine legal compliance or legal consequences.
Example output
# STRUCTURED DILIGENCE ISSUE REGISTER **Input Sufficiency:** Sufficient for preliminary issue structuring. The supplied materials support three distinct documented retention requirements, but do **not** establish that the requirements apply to the same underlying employee-record categories. Accordingly, the findings are kept separate rather than consolidated. --- ### ISSUE 1 **ISSUE:** HR Data Retention Policy specifies a 7-year retention period for employee personnel records. **SOURCE:** Source 1 — HR Data Retention Policy, section addressing employee personnel records — 7-year retention period. **UNDERLYING FACT:** The supplied HR Data Retention Policy states a 7-year retention period for employee personnel records. **AFFECTED DOCUMENT:** HR personnel files. **EVIDENCE STATUS:** SUPPORTED **MISSING INFORMATION:** The specific categories, subcategories, or record types encompassed by the 7-year personnel-record retention period are not identified in the supplied material beyond the reference to employee personnel records. **REVIEWER OBSERVATION:** UNKNOWN **CONFIDENCE / UNCERTAINTY:** The 7-year period is documented in the supplied source. It is unclear whether the records subject to this period overlap with the employee-record categories addressed by the other supplied retention provisions. **FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED:** Confirm the specific employee-record categories covered by the 7-year retention provision and compare them with the categories addressed in Sources 2 and 3. --- ### ISSUE 2 **ISSUE:** Employee Privacy Notice describes employee personal-data retention as limited to the period necessary for the stated purpose or as otherwise required by applicable retention requirements. **SOURCE:** Source 2 — Employee Privacy Notice, section addressing employee personal data retention. **UNDERLYING FACT:** The supplied Employee Privacy Notice states that employee personal data is retained only for the period necessary for the stated purpose or as otherwise required by applicable retention requirements. **AFFECTED DOCUMENT:** Employee privacy documentation. **EVIDENCE STATUS:** SUPPORTED **MISSING INFORMATION:** The supplied material does not identify the specific employee personal-data categories, stated purposes, or external retention requirements to which the provision applies, nor does it establish how this provision corresponds to the 7-year or 3-year periods in Sources 1 and 3. **REVIEWER OBSERVATION:** UNKNOWN **CONFIDENCE / UNCERTAINTY:** The retention language is documented. Its relationship to the specific record-retention periods in the other sources is unclear from the supplied evidence. **FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED:** Identify the employee personal-data categories and applicable retention requirements contemplated by the Privacy Notice and compare their scope with Sources 1 and 3. --- ### ISSUE 3 **ISSUE:** HR Operations Procedure appears to specify a 3-year retention period for certain employee records. **SOURCE:** Source 3 — HR Operations Procedure, section addressing retention of employee records — 3-year period. **UNDERLYING FACT:** The supplied HR Operations Procedure appears to require retention of certain employee records for 3 years. **AFFECTED DOCUMENT:** HR operational records. **EVIDENCE STATUS:** SUPPORTED **MISSING INFORMATION:** The specific employee-record categories subject to the 3-year period are not identified in the supplied material. **REVIEWER OBSERVATION:** The reviewer notes that the 3-year requirement may concern different record categories from those covered by the 7-year requirement, but the current materials do not establish whether the underlying records are the same. **CONFIDENCE / UNCERTAINTY:** The existence of a 3-year retention provision is supported by the supplied source. The scope of the provision and its relationship to the other retention periods remain unclear. **FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED:** Confirm the specific record categories governed by the 3-year provision and determine whether they overlap with the records subject to Sources 1 and 2. --- ### REGISTER-LEVEL NORMALIZATION FINDING The supplied materials indicate **three retention-related requirements**, but they do not provide enough evidence to establish that they govern the same underlying records. The appropriate current classification is therefore **POSSIBLY RELATED — INSUFFICIENT BASIS**, rather than SAME UNDERLYING ISSUE. No legal compliance conclusion or resolution of the apparent retention-period difference is established by the supplied evidence.
GPT

Diligence Issue Normalization Engine

Add to Cart
PromptBase Select
Get this prompt + 9 more with Select$14 your first month, then $19/mo$14 first month, then $19/mo
View Select
Instant accessInstant access
Usage rightsCommercial use
Money-back guaranteeMoney‑back
By purchasing this prompt, you agree to our terms of service
GPT-5.6
Tested icon
Guide icon
4 examples icon
Free credits icon
Normalize raw legal due diligence findings into structured issue records with source traceability, evidence status, duplicate control, conflict detection, uncertainty preservation, and human-review boundaries. Designed for M&A and transaction teams consolidating findings across workstreams without turning supplied evidence into unsupported legal conclusions.
...more
Added over 1 month ago
Report
Browse Marketplace