Draft Markup Of Counterparty Settlement Proposal

---
name: draft-markup-of-counterparty-settlement-proposal
task_id: trusts-estates-private-client/draft-markup-of-counterparty-settlement-proposal
description: Produce a redline markup of an opposing proposed marital settlement agreement with marginal commentary. Focus on contract-ready replacement language, issue spotting against supporting financial and parenting materials, and a priority-ordered cover memo that frames the negotiation posture in procedural terms.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft Redline Markup of Opposing Counsel's Proposed Marital Settlement Agreement with Marginal Commentary

## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable)

- Treat the proposed marital settlement agreement as the primary deliverable; draft the markup first, then the cover memo after the markup file is complete and non-empty.
- Build the markup as a clause-by-clause contract draft, not as narrative comments alone.
- Read the financial affidavits, forensic report, and custody evaluation as the governing comparison set for the agreement’s economic and parenting terms.
- If only one spouse, one support stream, one retirement asset, or one parenting issue is actually in scope, say so explicitly before analyzing; otherwise enumerate each distinct item before revising it.
- Do not assume omitted figures are harmless placeholders; determine whether each omission changes implementation, enforceability, or bargaining leverage.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Marking up adverse provisions without supplying contract-ready replacement language.
- Relying on styling alone for redlines, so changes disappear in export or are hard to follow in plain text.
- Accepting financial figures, disclosures, or allocations that conflict with the supporting affidavits or forensic analysis.
- Leaving parenting provisions unmoored from the custody evaluation or inconsistent with the proposed parenting structure.
- Failing to address implementation mechanics for recurring support, retirement division, tax treatment, indemnity, refinancing, or other provisions that require operational detail.
- Producing an unranked list of issues that leaves negotiation posture unclear.
- Describing problems without stating the governing legal or drafting authority that makes the change necessary.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- A marital settlement agreement is a binding contract and, once incorporated into a judgment, must be internally implementable without further negotiation.
- Ambiguity, missing mechanics, and inconsistent cross-references are drafting defects because they impair enforcement.
- Financial provisions should track the evidentiary record; when the support materials conflict with proposed terms, the markup should either correct the term or require a verification mechanism.
- Parenting provisions should align with the custody evaluation and any related parenting plan; factual findings relevant to child best interests should be reflected in the proposed language.
- Retirement division language should be specific enough to support later implementation documents and should identify the account, the division method, and any survivorship or valuation mechanics.
- Ongoing support provisions commonly need security, verification, modification triggers, and tax allocation language where applicable.
- Shared debt, shared property, and exclusive occupancy terms commonly need indemnity, refinance timing, sale triggers, possession rules, and default consequences.
- The controlling authority for each proposition should be named when relied on, whether it is a statute, rule, regulation, leading case, or generally recognized family-law practice authority.
- Use the governing jurisdiction’s convention for terms of art, but do not restate legal conclusions without identifying the rule or doctrinal basis.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

1. Review the agreement provision by provision.
2. For each provision, compare it against the affidavits, forensic findings, and custody evaluation.
3. Identify whether the provision is:
   - inconsistent with the source materials,
   - incomplete for implementation,
   - internally ambiguous,
   - missing an enforcement mechanism,
   - or strategically acceptable only as a negotiated position.
4. For each adverse or incomplete provision, draft replacement text that can be inserted directly into the agreement.
5. Add a marginal comment for each change that states:
   - the issue,
   - the controlling authority or drafting convention,
   - the source-material conflict or gap,
   - and the practical consequence if left unchanged.
6. Where the analysis admits multiple parties, assets, periods, accounts, or children, break them out explicitly and analyze each separately.
7. Rank the issues by negotiation importance:
   - non-negotiable,
   - high priority,
   - or opening position.
8. End the cover memo with concrete recommendations, each tied to a responsible role and timing anchor.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)

- Separate present-tense implementation terms from future-trigger terms: division now, transfer later, and enforcement upon default are different drafting problems.
- Link ongoing obligations to the event or date that causes them to begin, the event that ends them, and the event that modifies or secures them.
- When one provision depends on another document or later order, make the dependency explicit rather than implied.
- If the agreement allocates an asset, debt, or parenting function to one party, add the related indemnity, cooperation, access, notice, or fallback language needed to make that allocation work.
- If there is a temporal sequence in the source materials, preserve it in the markup so the draft can be implemented without reconciling competing dates later.
- For parenting provisions, distinguish regular schedule, holiday schedule, decision-making authority, exchange logistics, relocation limits, and dispute-resolution steps.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Produce the redline as a complete markup document with robust textual change markers that survive export.
- Use explicit markers for changed text, such as deletion, insertion, and replacement indicators, so every substantive revision is visible from the text alone.
- Attach a short rationale comment to each substantive change.
- Use contract-ready replacement language, not abstract notes.
- Organize commentary by clause or issue, with a severity label applied uniformly to each entry from a simple ordinal scale such as Critical, High, Medium, or Low.
- In the cover memo, present the issues in priority order and make clear which points are deal-breaking, which are principal negotiation items, and which are fallback positions.
- The cover memo should explain the overall negotiating posture, identify the governing authority or convention for each major point, and state the practical consequence of accepting the opposing language.
- Conclude the memo with a Recommended Actions section that states the action, the responsible role, and the timing anchor for each recommendation.
- Before finalizing, confirm that the markup file is complete, non-empty, and contains operative replacement language, and that the memo is complete and prioritized.