📖 How to use Guard — field-by-field instructions
▼
Guard scans any text for hidden risk — scope creep, financial exposure, unverifiable claims, and accidental commitments. Paste any outgoing text (email draft, meeting notes, proposal), configure what to scan for, and click Run Guard scan. The example below scans a project status email with several risky phrases.
Scan categories
Toggle on/off which risk types to scan for. Scope creep — expanding deliverables. Financial risk — unguarded cost or price statements. Factual claims — assertions that could be wrong. Commitments — promises and deadlines that create obligation.
Text to scan
Paste any outgoing text here. Works best with emails, meeting notes, proposals, status reports, and presentation talking points. The longer and more specific the text, the more precise the findings.
Your role
Helps the AI calibrate risk to your role. A Project Manager on a fixed-price project faces very different exposure than an IT Consultant on T&M. Selecting your role produces more relevant findings.
Contract type
Critical context. A Fixed-price project makes scope and commitment findings much more serious than a Time & material contract. Always set this if you know it.
Key risk to watch
If there is a specific type of risk you are particularly worried about, name it here. E.g. “Cannot commit to delivery dates” or “No pricing discussions allowed”. This focuses the scan.
Audience
Who will receive this text? The risk profile changes if you are writing to a client steering committee vs. an internal team. A client audience raises the severity of commitment and scope findings.
💡 Best results tip: Run Guard on anything that goes externally to a client — especially status updates, proposals, and meeting follow-ups. These are the texts where casual language most often creates unintended legal or commercial exposure.
ProQuenta Guard
Scan before you send.
Paste any text — Guard flags what could go wrong.
✦ Example — project status email scan
Scan for:
🟣 Scope creep
🟠 Financial risk
🔵 Factual claims
🔴 Commitments
Text to scan
813 characters
Risk findings
4 findings
📌 Example output.
High risk — This text contains 4 findings that create significant legal and commercial exposure on a fixed-price contract.
Commitment
High
“I can personally guarantee that the Q4 go-live date will be met as planned”
This creates a personal commitment to a specific delivery date that cannot be guaranteed on a project currently assessed as “at risk”. On a fixed-price contract, a written personal guarantee to a client can be cited in a dispute. Even if the intent is reassurance, the phrasing creates contractual exposure.
Safer phrasing
“We are targeting the Q4 go-live date and are actively managing open risks to maintain this timeline. We will communicate any material changes to the schedule promptly.”
Scope creep
High
“we will also take care of the historical reporting backfill for the past 3 years as part of this project — at no additional cost to ING”
This adds a major deliverable (3-year historical data backfill) that was not in the original contract, explicitly waiving any additional charge. On a fixed-price contract, this in writing constitutes a binding commitment to out-of-scope work at zero cost. This should never be stated without a formal change order.
Safer phrasing
“Regarding the historical reporting backfill discussed in the meeting — I will raise this as a formal change request and revert with an impact assessment on scope, timeline and cost.”
Commitment
High
“there will be no further budget surprises after CR-007”
This guarantees no future cost increases — an impossible commitment on any project, particularly one currently at risk. If any further change is needed after CR-007, this statement will be cited by the client as a breach of a written assurance.
Safer phrasing
“CR-007 addresses the currently identified scope gaps. We will continue to manage risks proactively and communicate any potential impacts transparently and in advance.”
Factual claim
High
“we have already fixed all critical data integrity issues in the two affected streams”
This asserts completion of the data migration fix as a fact. If any issues are later discovered in these streams, this written statement will contradict the evidence. Only assert this if you have formal test sign-off on these streams — not just verbal confirmation.
Safer phrasing
“The remediation work on both affected data streams is progressing well and is on track for completion ahead of go-live. Final validation is pending.”