How it works

See Jeos in action

A one-minute walkthrough of uploading a document set, choosing what to focus on, and reviewing the flagged results.

Step 1

Upload your documents

Any mix of PDF, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, HTML, or images - two or more files in the same run.

Step 2

Tell Jeos what to look for

Use a built-in template as-is, or describe what you're trying to achieve and refine the prompt together.

Step 3

Review the flagged results

Every item cites the exact document and clause it came from, so your team can verify anything in seconds.

Sample output

What a Jeos report looks like

A real excerpt from an actual comparison run across a contract, an amendment, a deliverables register, and supporting documents.

Analysis Report
Abbreviated excerpt

Executive Summary

A cross-document comparison identified multiple material inconsistencies across the uploaded records. The most significant issues concern:

  1. Liability exposure — [agreement.docx] and [kickoff.pptx] state a $50,000 liability cap, while [amendment.pdf] increases the cap to $75,000.
  2. Support acknowledgment SLA — [deliverables.xlsx] requires acknowledgment within 2 business hours, whereas [agreement.docx], [kickoff.pptx], and [policy.html] state 4 business hours.
  3. Termination / renewal notice — [agreement.docx] uses a 60-day notice tied to auto-renewal, while [amendment.pdf] changes this to 90 days' written notice and uses broader termination wording.
  4. Quarterly review timing — [kickoff.pptx] identifies the next review date as 1 December 2026, but [sitevisit.png] records a quarterly system health review on 15 September 2026.
  5. Amendment effectiveness ambiguity — [amendment.pdf] says changes are effective "from the date below," but no effective date is provided in the supplied text, leaving the operative date of revised terms unclear.

In addition, several lower-severity scope and interpretation risks exist, including added scope detail in [deliverables.xlsx] not reflected in the contract baseline, undefined document hierarchy, and missing definitions for schedule cadence and contractual precedence.

Conflicts & Discrepancies

High Severity

1. Liability cap conflict: $50,000 vs $75,000

  • Documents involved: [agreement.docx], [amendment.pdf], [kickoff.pptx]
  • Conflicting excerpts:
    • [agreement.docx]: "The Supplier's total liability under this agreement shall not exceed $50,000 in any 12-month period."
    • [amendment.pdf]: "The Supplier's total liability is increased to $75,000 in any 12-month period."
    • [kickoff.pptx]: "Liability cap agreed at kickoff: $50,000 per 12-month period"
  • Description of inconsistency: The liability cap is stated as $50,000 in [agreement.docx] and [kickoff.pptx], but $75,000 in [amendment.pdf].
  • Why this matters: Liability cap language directly affects financial risk allocation, insurance alignment, reserve calculations, claim strategy, and approval authority. A $25,000 difference is material.
  • Issue type: Direct
  • Apparent controlling / more specific / newer text: [amendment.pdf] appears newer and more specific than [agreement.docx] because it expressly states that it updates the original agreement. Relative priority versus [kickoff.pptx] cannot be confirmed from the text alone, although a formal amendment would ordinarily appear more authoritative than a kickoff summary.

This is 1 of 8 findings

The full report also covers the support SLA, termination, payment terms, and scheduling conflicts, scope risks, gap analysis, and recommendations.

Download full report (PDF)

Source files used in this comparison

Download the exact documents behind the report above and try uploading them yourself.

Try a comparison now