LEGACY ROUTE ONLY These files preserve the earlier prepared-input review route and its invented examples. They do not satisfy or test the upgraded closure-register/request-ledger workflow. Start with ../README.txt and ../START-HERE.txt for the current route. Do not combine the two schemas or use the old expected results as automation test evidence. Prepare neutral review invitations Get the source data and prepare the review Documentation-checked component path; proposed workflow, not tested WHAT WAS CHECKED Public official documentation and supplied candidate artifacts only. No product login, account exports, client data, installation, credential access, external writes, advertising spend, template imports or live tests. Proposed prompts do not prove a feature supports every requested field. Missing required source data blocks execution. BEFORE YOU START - 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. DATA ACQUISITION LIMITS - Permission, milestone and prior-request fields are not guaranteed native exports. No review solicitation automation is activated. STOP IF - Missing uniform policy, verified link, complete request history or affirmative permitted-contact evidence. KEEP THE ANALYSIS COPY SEPARATE Keep untouched original exports/screenshots and the identifying source map in restricted firm storage. Build a separate minimized analysis file; do not hide raw client data on another tab. Include the complete Scope/coverage note in the AI-visible workbook or prompt. Use aliases and administrative metadata only. Unknown is not zero, false, completed or absent. INPUT FORMAT LIMIT All capitalized analysis tables and alias fields are editorial contracts. Native exports retain real vendor headers; mapping is explicit. No blank starter template is evidence of available data. NATIVE REVIEW INPUTS version: 1 status: Requires distinct native-input templates or an explicit reviewed mapping; existing kit is not drop-in compatible compatibleWithoutMapping: False existingKitFilesInspected: - file: invitation-draft.txt firstLine: EMPTY OUTPUT TEMPLATE: invitation-draft.txt - file: invitation-queue.csv firstLine: service_alias,eligibility,reason,prior_request_ref,channel,reviewer_status - file: request-log.csv firstLine: service_alias,requested_at,channel - file: services.csv firstLine: service_alias,milestone,milestone_at,contact_permission,opted_out - file: uniform-policy.txt firstLine: G16: uniform-policy.txt requiredNativeInputs: - name: Eligibility kind: editorial_table proposedDistinctTemplate: native-eligibility-template.csv columns: - alias - milestone - contact_permission - opted_out - prior_request_sent - coverage - source_ref acquisitionRequirement: Populate only from the recipe’s documented export or explicit manual evidence capture. Existing blanks and synthetic fixtures do not supply facts. - name: ApprovedPolicy kind: approved_text_section proposedDistinctTemplate: native-approvedpolicy-template.txt requiredContent: Full uniform request policy, approved milestone/contact rules, privacy and duplicate-request rules. - name: VerifiedLink kind: approved_text_section proposedDistinctTemplate: native-verifiedlink-template.txt requiredContent: Actual copied review-request URL and correct profile/location verification. - name: Scope kind: approved_text_section proposedDistinctTemplate: native-scope-template.txt requiredContent: 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. templateFilesCreatedByThisTask: False requiredGate: Kit owner must add the named inputs or document field-level mapping before replacing an existing kit prompt. Preserve the old kit contract; never rename headers without acquiring missing evidence. OPEN THE INPUT MAPPING GUIDE NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING.txt Use the distinct native input scaffolds listed below. Complete them from the acquired, reviewed evidence and include every required scope section in the AI-visible packet. Existing synthetic examples exercise the original review prompt only. They are not acquired evidence or a test of this native chain. Eligibility: native-eligibility-template.csv ApprovedPolicy: native-approvedpolicy-template.txt VerifiedLink: native-verifiedlink-template.txt Scope: native-scope-template.txt STEP 1: Copy the genuine profile review link Tool: Google Business Profile Open: Business Profile > Read reviews > Get more reviews > Copy Access needed: Existing authorized access and relevant plan/region feature; exact live subscription and permissions not tested. No setup or persistent access changes included. AI role: not_an_ai_step Use the correct existing firm/location profile. Copy the actual review-request link and check its destination. A desktop browser also supports saving the displayed QR image. Expected output: Verified review-request URL and location reference. Use it next: Put the URL into the approved message brief; do not invent or shorten it with an unverified service. Check: An individual review Share link is different from the link that requests a new review. Documentation limit: The source verifies the component feature; workflow prompts, schemas, manual captures, checks and handoffs are proposed editorial adaptations. Source documentation: https://support.google.com/business/answer/16816815?hl=en-GB STEP 2: Capture eligibility without sentiment gating Tool: Lawmatics / existing request log Open: Existing targeted Custom Report and selected matter Tasks/Activities; firm’s approved request log Access needed: Existing authorized access and relevant plan/region feature; exact live subscription and permissions not tested. No setup or persistent access changes included. AI role: not_an_ai_step Capture only the uniformly defined service milestone, contact-permission flag, opt-out state and whether a request was already sent. Exact fields are firm-maintained; inspect source records when they do not exist in a report. Do not use ratings, complaints or outcomes as selection criteria. Expected output: Staff-verified alias-only eligibility ledger and approved uniform policy. Use it next: Create the local Eligibility table with alias, milestone, contact_permission, opted_out, prior_request_sent, coverage and source_ref. Paste the complete ApprovedPolicy text, VerifiedLink URL/location, and Scope into this same separate minimized workbook. The names are editorial mappings; do not leave policy or scope in an unshared sidecar file. Check: No invitation is inferred from Hired status or absence of a logged opt-out; unknown permission is blocked. Documentation limit: The source verifies the component feature; workflow prompts, schemas, manual captures, checks and handoffs are proposed editorial adaptations. Source documentation: https://help.lawmatics.com/en/articles/10699825-matter-profile-overview https://help.lawmatics.com/en/articles/10738648-completing-and-editing-tasks https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/7400114?hl=en STEP 3: Ask AI to inspect the checked inputs Tool: Excel Copilot, optional Open: Analysis workbook > Copilot icon at lower right > Chat only Access needed: Existing authorized access and relevant plan/region feature; exact live subscription and permissions not tested. No setup or persistent access changes included. AI role: downstream_application_ai Open the minimized workbook containing the named tables and Scope. Paste the exact prompt; if unavailable, perform the same rule checks manually. PASTE THIS PROMPT Using Eligibility, ApprovedPolicy, VerifiedLink and Scope, apply only the uniform milestone, permission, privacy and duplicate-request rules. Never select people by satisfaction, case result, likelihood of a positive rating or complaint status. Unknown contact permission means blocked. Draft one neutral invitation for honest optional feedback using the verified link, with no incentive, requested stars, suggested review text or representation details. Return eligible aliases, blocked reasons, draft and source refs; do not send. Expected output: Reviewed-invitation candidate queue and neutral message draft. Use it next: Copy checked results into a new Review sheet, retaining source references and unresolved blockers. Check: Review the uniform inclusion/exclusion logic and the risk that a public review reveals a relationship. Documentation limit: The source verifies the component feature; workflow prompts, schemas, manual captures, checks and handoffs are proposed editorial adaptations. Source documentation: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/excel/copilot/get-started-with-copilot-in-excel STEP 4: Human review and final action Tool: Responsible firm reviewer Open: Internal Review worksheet / review document Access needed: Existing authorized access and relevant plan/region feature; exact live subscription and permissions not tested. No setup or persistent access changes included. AI role: not_an_ai_step Lawyer approves the uniform policy, privacy implications, actual recipients and final wording. Save the queue; an authorized staff member sends only individually approved requests through the existing permitted channel and records sent status. Expected output: Approval-ready invitation queue; no messages sent. Use it next: Original CRM/contact channel is the final human tool, after explicit send authorization. Check: Private negative feedback must not gate access to the public review link. Documentation limit: The source verifies the component feature; workflow prompts, schemas, manual captures, checks and handoffs are proposed editorial adaptations. Source documentation: https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/7400114?hl=en https://support.google.com/business/answer/16816815?hl=en-GB ACCOUNT AND SOURCE CHECKS STILL NEEDED - The live account, entitlement, exact headers, records and field coverage have not been observed. USING THE FILES IN THIS KIT Use the exact files or source text named in the steps above. Native exports keep their own headers. The kit tables are editorial review worksheets; they are not a claim that a product exports those fields. Some routes use reviewed text directly or require additional original files. Never rename an unreviewed raw export to make it appear mapped. Keep expected-result files separate from inputs. The source account, actual data, prompts and end-to-end workflow were not tested. Any final communication, filing, permission change, payment or publication needs its own authorized human action. This guide performs none.