G12: native input mapping Draft conditional forms from approved questions Purpose and compatibility A blank file is an input scaffold, not a native export or completed mapping. Preserve the exact column names/order and input names. Populate only from the documented native acquisition or explicit manual evidence. Stop if a required input, permission, privacy condition or coverage requirement is missing. Do not replace an old prompt until the named inputs and field-level mapping are reviewed. These files do not authorize login, setup, imports, account changes, message sending, publication, test submissions or spending. Contract status: Requires distinct native-input templates or an explicit reviewed mapping; existing kit is not drop-in compatible Compatible without mapping: false Required inputs Questions -> native-questions-template.csv Exact columns: question_id,approved_wording,field_type,crm_mapping,required,controller_question,allowed_answers,show_if_answer,source_ref Populate only from the recipe’s documented export or explicit manual evidence capture. Existing blanks and synthetic fixtures do not supply facts. Scope -> native-scope-template.txt Required content: Full approved scope, source account aliases, date filters, date basis/timezone, as-of capture time, definitions, source-to-alias map provenance, matching rules, inspected/excluded records, permission/privacy limits, missing-data reasons, coverage and responsible reviewer. Include recipe-specific policies, versions and tests. Scope must be inside the AI workbook or pasted packet, not merely a separate unprovided file. Complete each required field from approved source evidence. Old files and reviewed mapping approved-script.csv Original first line: question_id,exact_wording,answer_type,required,approved_branch_rule,practice_area branch-tests.csv Original first line: test_id,input_answer,expected_path,unresolved_rule field-dictionary.csv Original first line: field_id,type,persist_in_crm,allowed_values form-spec.csv Original first line: question_id,exact_wording,field_id,field_type,required,branch_rule,persistence policy.txt Original first line: G12: policy.txt approved-script.csv -> Questions: verify question_id, exact_wording -> approved_wording and required. answer_type -> field_type requires the actual supported field configuration. Split approved_branch_rule into controller_question and show_if_answer only when its exact semantics are approved; do not infer branching. field-dictionary.csv and form-spec.csv -> Questions: verify the actual crm_mapping, field_type and allowed_answers. Add genuine approval/source_ref. A proposed form-spec does not prove current CRM persistence or a tested branch. policy.txt and branch-tests.csv -> Scope: carry approved policy, versions and test requirements; expected paths remain untested until actual approved evidence exists. How to perform the handoff 1. Keep original exports and raw evidence unchanged in restricted firm storage. Check actual source fields, dates, coverage, privacy and access before mapping. 2. Prepare the distinct native inputs above. Record every mapped field, derived interpretation, missing value and observed source reference in Scope. Identically named columns still require source/evidence validation. 3. Create a separate minimized analysis workbook or text packet. Name tables/sections exactly as listed. A CSV file does not itself create a named Excel table. 4. Include the full completed Scope in the same AI-visible workbook or pasted packet. Verify exclusions, denominator, matching rules and unknowns. Do not hide raw client data on another worksheet. 5. Obtain the responsible reviewer’s approval of the completed mapping and evidence coverage before using the native prompt. Keep all blocked items visible. Any later external action is a separately authorized human step. Acquisition and privacy requirements Use approved minimized administrative metadata and aliases only. Aliases alone do not guarantee anonymity. Keep untouched exports/screenshots, identifying source maps, full documents and sensitive narratives in restricted firm storage. A hidden worksheet is not a privacy boundary. Do not insert credentials, payment/tax identifiers, raw client documents or unsanitized review text. Unknown is not zero, false, completed or absent. Existing authorized access to the correct source account and records; no new login, credentials, installation or permission grant is included. Responsible lawyer/operations reviewer approves scope, definitions and any later action. AI optional; use only approved minimized data and retain originals separately. Native form logic is documented; this workflow drafts a spec, not a generated/importable form. The live account, entitlement, exact headers, records and field coverage have not been observed. Recipe acquisition / manual mapping instructions Read the existing question and field map Location: Docs & Forms > Custom Forms > selected form > field settings; Settings > Custom Field Settings Capture only attorney-approved questions, answer options, field type, required flag and CRM destination. Use the actual existing form or approved question document. Do not edit or Save Form during evidence gathering. Verification: General/Form Only fields do not store in CRM, appear in reports or sync to case management. Changing a label does not change its mapped field. https://help.lawmatics.com/en/articles/10699800-lawmatics-navigation-experience https://help.lawmatics.com/en/articles/10738644-adding-fields-to-a-custom-form Do not proceed when - No approved questions/options, missing field map or unsupported conditional rule. Scope template requirements Full approved scope, source account aliases, date filters, date basis/timezone, as-of capture time, definitions, source-to-alias map provenance, matching rules, inspected/excluded records, permission/privacy limits, missing-data reasons, coverage and responsible reviewer. Include recipe-specific policies, versions and tests. Scope must be inside the AI workbook or pasted packet, not merely a separate unprovided file. Old examples and validation limits Legacy synthetic examples and negative cases belong to their old prompts. They do not automatically test the native route and must not be fed into a new prompt without an explicit reviewed mapping and separately approved test design. These new files contain no synthetic values, source exports, account results or live-test evidence. Documentation-checked component path; proposed workflow, not tested Public official documentation checked 2026-10-15; no login, export, live query, import, installation, configuration, message or client workflow was executed. Local validation covers only exact scaffold schemas, placeholder presence, blank CSV rows and required warnings. It does not establish live account coverage, native export validity, successful integration or completed workflow tests.