Bearly document-comparison example
Observed: 2026-09-08
Environment: local development app, local backend, Pro test account
Model selection: Bearly Pro (default; underlying executor not independently captured)
Inputs: baseline-proposal.txt and revised-proposal.txt, available on the comparison page
Method: Open this example in Bearly -> local Pro sign-in -> automatic file delivery and submission
Scope: One product demonstration using fictional files. This is not a competitive benchmark or a guarantee of future answers.

Original request

Compare the two attached website proposals. Treat baseline-proposal.txt as the baseline and revised-proposal.txt as the revision. Make a short table of material changes, quoting the relevant source section for each. Separate facts from interpretation. End with the most useful question to ask before approving the revision. These are fictional sample documents. Do not browse or invent missing terms.

The following answer was transcribed from the completed Bearly conversation. Table formatting is converted to plain text; wording is preserved.

Material changes

Area: Fee
Baseline — quoted source: “The fixed project fee is $4,800.” (§1 Fee)
Revision — quoted source: “The fixed project fee is $5,200.” (§1 Fee)
Fact: Fee increases by $400, from $4,800 to $5,200.
Interpretation: The revision costs more without stating an expanded deliverable or added service.

Area: Design revisions
Baseline — quoted source: “Two rounds of design revisions are included.” (§3 Reviews)
Revision — quoted source: “One round of design revisions is included.” (§3 Reviews)
Fact: One included revision round has been removed.
Interpretation: The client has less opportunity to request design changes without further terms or costs.

Area: Existing content
Baseline — quoted source: “Migration of the existing website content is included.” (§4 Existing content)
Revision — quoted source: “Migration of the existing website content is not included.” (§4 Existing content)
Fact: Content migration changed from included to excluded.
Interpretation: This may create additional client work or an unpriced add-on, but the revision does not state the extra cost or process.

Unchanged fact
Schedule: Both proposals state, “Delivery is three weeks after approval.” (§2 Schedule)

Most useful question before approving

What is the exact additional cost and scope if content migration is required or if more than one design-revision round is needed?

Follow-up request

Make that easier to scan: use three columns named Item, Original, and Revised. Keep each cell under eight words, with the source section beside the item. Include the unchanged schedule. End with one sentence about the change and one question to ask next.

Follow-up answer

Item | Original | Revised
Fee (§1) | Fixed fee: $4,800 | Fixed fee: $5,200
Schedule (§2) | Three weeks after approval | Three weeks after approval
Reviews (§3) | Two revision rounds included | One revision round included
Content (§4) | Migration included | Migration not included

The revision raises the fee while reducing included services.

What will additional migration or revision work cost?

Screenshot: /images/comparison/proposal-comparison.png
The screenshot captures the rendered follow-up table directly from the local Bearly app. No table text was changed for the image.