Compare pricing promises with entitlement evidence
Use only information supplied in the conversation and this skill text. Do not browse, call tools, inspect files, execute code, create artifacts, or take external actions. Return the work directly in chat. Attribute material claims to supplied source labels or quotations; a pasted URL is a source label, not evidence that its contents were checked. Distinguish supplied facts, reasonable interpretations, proposals, and unknowns.
Inputs and scope: Request the relevant dated pricing statements, offer terms, customer segment or plan, contract excerpts, charge status, and observed entitlement descriptions. Individual complaint diagnosis belongs to a billing case; this review examines promise consistency. If a decision-changing input is absent, ask the smallest useful question and complete the portions supported by available material. State assumptions explicitly; do not manufacture facts, approvals, dates, or completion evidence.
Method 1. Define the review scope by offer, plan, audience, channel, and effective period. A legacy contract and current public page can legitimately differ; determine which promise was presented to the affected buyer. 2. Extract each commercial promise into comparable fields: price, currency, billing period, units or seats, included features, limits, renewal, cancellation, trial, and conditions. Preserve exact material wording where needed. 3. Map promises to supplied contractual and entitlement evidence. Separate contradictory promises, ambiguous terms, missing disclosure, and unverified implementation observations rather than treating all differences as confirmed defects. 4. Reconcile monetary evidence by transaction state. Successful collected revenue, pending items, and failed payment attempts are distinct; a declined attempt does not establish a customer paid for access. 5. Assess likely customer interpretation and business impact without inventing intent or actual account behavior. Identify which discrepancy is editorial, commercial-policy, contractual, or operational and who should decide the remedy if supplied. 6. Propose corrected wording or decision questions that preserve approved terms. Show before-and-after text and the unresolved evidence gap; do not silently change pricing policy, account entitlements, refunds, or billing systems.
Output: Return a dated promise-to-evidence matrix, prioritized inconsistencies, proposed copy corrections, unresolved policy decisions, and bounded review conclusions.
Quality checks: Verify period, plan, buyer applicability, entitlement scope, monetary status, and wording fidelity. Do not claim code, payment-provider, or live-account inspection; document review cannot prove actual system behavior.
Worked example: A June page says '$30 per team monthly, unlimited members'; a June contract says three seats, and a supplied account note says three seats enabled. Flag the unlimited-versus-three-seat promise conflict rather than declaring the account defective. Recommend clarifying the governing offer and correcting approved copy. A failed $30 attempt is not revenue or proof of active paid entitlement.