Check a draft against approved document styles
List formatting differences while protecting the document’s wording and quotations.
Tools for the documented steps
Practice relevance
Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.
The problem
List formatting differences while protecting the document’s wording and quotations.
Why it matters: Inconsistent formatting creates rework and can hide changes in a legal document. Checking an approved style profile helps staff separate presentation fixes from wording that must remain untouched.
Sources & evidence
Proposed / not tested. The public source describes the problem. Documentation supports only the stated method components; no result from this recipe has been verified.
What’s been verified
Source methods and reported problems have been reviewed. We have not run the adapted workflow. The sample below describes expected behavior on synthetic data, not a customer result.
What to measure: In a synthetic pilot, count correctly found exceptions, false alarms, and unresolved inputs. No time or cost saving is assumed.
- Pain evidence: Grammar police ↗Grammar police, 2026-07-01, older evidence. OP and comments describe attorney-specific spacing, punctuation and indentation expectations. Proofreading, 2024-04-10, independently describes mistakes after moving to unfamiliar precedents under speed pressure.
- Pain evidence: Proofreading ↗Additional self-reported public account; no independent identity or outcome verification.
- Method: Microsoft Word styles ↗Microsoft Word styles supports consistent formatting and reusable template styles. This does not prove automatic legal proofreading.
Source checked: October 15, 2026. Pain accounts are self-reported. Documentation supports components; this adapted recipe and prompt have not been tested. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
Suggested approach
Start when: A draft reaches admin QA
- check it against an attorney-approved formatting profile
- Keep source references and report unknowns instead of filling gaps.
- The responsible reviewer checks the report before any separately approved action.
Limits and review
The assistant drafts or reports only. Check source records and review the output before a human performs any separately approved send or change. No automatic legal decision, money movement, account connection or publication is included.
Who reviews it: Reviewer accepts profile and repairs; never normalize punctuation where meaning could change. Test with deliberate inconsistent styles and one protected quotation.
What you need
Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files
- Word desktop with formatting controls; approved explicit style profile and working copy of the actual DOCX, including protected quotations/signature blocks.
- Existing firm-approved Acrobat Studio, AI Assistant add-on, or another plan including Acrobat AI; online services/cloud storage, language and region must be permitted. No purchase, login or connection is part of this verification. The manual route works without AI.
- Preserve original evidence unchanged in restricted storage. Use synthetic material first. Prepare a separate, explicitly approved minimized AI input; aliases alone do not anonymize narrative or attachments. Do not upload raw originals or an alias key merely because another tab/file is sanitized.
- Use synthetic inputs first. Keep real data in firm-approved accounts and processing, with appropriate access, confidentiality and retention controls. Aliases alone do not anonymize records. Never paste credentials, API keys or unnecessary client details.
How to use
Documentation-verified component path; proposed adaptation, not tested
- PDF/text extraction does not reveal actual Word style inheritance, direct formatting, section margins or paragraph properties. No automatic complete style-metadata export is claimed.
Check access and setup
- Actual account access, source versions/completeness, privacy approval and reviewer sign-off were not observed.
Inspect formatting in the actual Word file
Word desktop · Home > Styles; Home > Paragraph dialog launcher > Indents and Spacing; Layout > Margins
In a separately named working copy select each in-scope paragraph; record the highlighted style, visible font settings and actual Paragraph dialog values. Inspect each section’s margins in Layout > Margins/Custom Margins rather than assuming one document-wide value. Record paragraph/section locator, property, observed value/unit, approved expected value, protection status and reviewer. Cancel inspection dialogs without changing values.
- Expected output
- Manually observed style-properties ledger; actual style profile and protected-scope list.
- Next step
- Create an approved metadata-only TXT containing observed properties and the profile; no confidential prose is needed.
- Check before continuing
- Style name alone does not prove effective formatting. Uninspected properties remain unknown; missing section/paragraph locators block that comparison.
Load only the approved AI input
Acrobat PDF Spaces · Acrobat homepage > PDF Spaces > Create a PDF Space > upload files or Paste copied text > Add to PDF Space
Add the observed formatting ledger, approved style profile and protected-scope list. Use clear source/version labels and verify the Files panel. Do not add originals that have not separately been cleared for Adobe processing.
- Expected output
- Visible approved source set in the PDF Space; no account integration is implied.
- Next step
- Use the AI Assistant message field in this same space for the next prompt.
- Check before continuing
- Confirm every named source is actually loaded and readable. PDF Spaces supports up to 100 files, 100 MB and 600 pages per file; unsupported/password-protected/handwritten material blocks affected extraction.
Run the bounded prompt and inspect citations
Acrobat AI Assistant · The PDF Space AI Assistant message field
Paste the prompt below. Open each source-number citation, check it, and use Copy to transfer the answer into a new local Word document or text file. Correct errors using the originals before reliance.
- Expected output
- Property-level formatting deviation list with unknown/conflicting rules visible.
- Next step
- Save the checked draft as style-review.docx; carry source IDs, versions and reviewer corrections into the next review step.
- Check before continuing
- A paragraph spacing-after value of 12 pt against 6 pt must be flagged; a protected quote is not changed.
Apply only approved formatting repairs
Word desktop · Working copy > Home > Styles; right-click selected style > Modify
Reviewer approves deviations first. Apply the correct existing approved style to the intended paragraphs, or modify the relevant style for this document only. Inspect all affected paragraphs because one style change can affect many locations. Apply section margins separately only when expressly approved.
- Expected output
- Separate formatted candidate DOCX and list of applied property changes.
- Next step
- Use Review > Compare > Compare (legal blackline), select original DOCX and candidate, show results in a new document.
- Check before continuing
- Do not choose output into Original/Revised. Check that only approved formatting changed; inspect layout in Print Layout.
Create and review a separate legal blackline
Word desktop · Review > Compare > Compare (legal blackline) > Original document / Revised document > More > Show changes in: New document
Select the unchanged original DOCX as Original document and the separate formatted candidate as Revised document. Expand comparison settings and include text and formatting; include comments and other affected elements as appropriate to the approved scope. Show results in New document, never Original or Revised. Read any tracked-change warning carefully; preserve both inputs and do not accept or reject their tracked changes. Compare and save the resulting new comparison document separately.
- Expected output
- New version-specific comparison DOCX, with preserved original and formatted candidate.
- Next step
- Open this comparison document beside the candidate in Print Layout for the final reviewer; inspect every change and all affected rendered pages.
- Check before continuing
- Check that no wording, numbers, quotations, citations or protected material changed. A blackline does not replace visual review of margins, pagination, tables and other affected layout.
Human review and final handoff
Final human reviewResponsible staff reviewer and lawyer/process owner · Local reviewed report beside the frozen source set
Reviewer checks the blackline and all affected rendered pages. Reject substantive differences; record approved profile/version and final document version.
- Expected output
- Reviewed formatting-only candidate and deviation/disposition log.
- Next step
- Approval is formatting review, not legal proofreading or filing acceptance.
- Check before continuing
- All unresolved or unreadable evidence stays open. No inferred approval or external action follows from AI output.
What you’ll get
Approved assistant workspace for the deviation list; Word desktop to apply approved styles in a separate copy. Output style-deviations.csv.
Inputs and a sample test Synthetic example · not a measured result
Input files
- draft.docx; style-profile.csv columns style_id, element_type, property, expected_value, protected_scope; no client identifiers.
Synthetic example
Profile: Body paragraph spacing after = 6 pt. Paragraph P12 = 12 pt → report P12 mismatch; leave a quotation marked protected unchanged.
Expected output
Profile: Body paragraph spacing after = 6 pt. Paragraph P12 = 12 pt → report P12 mismatch; leave a quotation marked protected unchanged.
Test a failure
Reviewer accepts profile and repairs; never normalize punctuation where meaning could change. Test with deliberate inconsistent styles and one protected quotation.
Try with the sample files
Follow the tool steps above and use the inputs named in each step. Where provided, native-* files are blank scaffolds and NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING explains their fields. Original examples and the optional full review prompt use a separate prepared-input schema. Keep them separate unless the mapping explicitly connects them. Downloading a kit does not connect accounts or prove the workflow works.
Download inputs and checklist 7 files
Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.
- Download starter kit All inputs, synthetic examples and review notes in one ZIP. No automation is installed.
- Start here: get the sources and prepare the review Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits
- Setup and review checklist Required inputs, file use, review steps and limits
- Style profile blank CSV Blank input headers for style-profile.csv
- Style profile synthetic example Synthetic test records for style-profile.csv
- Draft preparation Required policy or native-input preparation aid; synthetic when marked example
- Synthetic example expected results Compare a pilot result with the planted exceptions
Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs
Prepared-input review prompt with Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files
Proposed / not tested · editorial prompt. This prompt uses the original prepared-input schema shown in the sample test. Step prompts may use different tables. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied; do not mix the original examples with native-step inputs without mapping and checking every field.