Buyers hand a seller or developer years of payments based on a brochure. Build a Claude Project that pulls market reports, the contract, the payment terms, and the counterparty's actual track record into one grounded analyst, then read the bull case and the bear case back to back before anyone signs.
Paste instructions telling the model to work only from uploaded documents and refuse to speculate about numbers or dates it hasn't been given.
Recent quarterly market reports from real research houses, so the model has real comparables instead of memory.
The contract, payment schedule, and the counterparty's last five completed projects with promised vs actual delivery dates.
Run both memos back to back. If the bear case is stronger than the bull case, you've already saved the deposit.
Using only the documents in this project, write a bear case memo covering how a buyer typically loses money on a deal like this: delivery delay, spec downgrade, oversupply at completion, and counterparty default. Cite the source document and page for every claim. End with what you cannot verify from these documents.
Construction quality, access, and the finished feel of a place have no document substitute. A site visit still matters.
Undisclosed issues or quiet changes won't show up. Treat absence of a risk as inconclusive, not reassurance.
Upload only the marketing brochure and you get the brochure's narrative back in memo form.
A client's lending, tax position, and existing exposure aren't in the project. The memos are research; the decision is still theirs.