Meeting notes and a project brief can disagree about a deadline, owner, or deliverable. OGAD (Off Grid AI Desktop) can compare the text with a local model and help you identify differences that need a decision.
The useful result is a list of supported conflicts with source passages. The model should not silently rewrite the brief or assume that the most recent note automatically overrides it.
Download OGAD | Desktop beta 122 release notes
What would you like to do with Off Grid AI?
Have a feature or use case you would like us to support? Tell us what you want to do and which device you use.
Write to support@getoffgridai.co, join our Slack community, or talk to us on Reddit.
Choose the versions you intend to compare
Start with one project brief and the notes from one relevant meeting. Give each source a name and date. Identify whether the brief is approved, a draft, or unknown, and whether the meeting notes are final or still being corrected.
If you have several copies, choose the intended versions before asking for analysis. “Brief final” and “Brief final updated” can describe different documents without telling you which one governs the project.
Keep a baseline copy available. You need to know what the brief said before the meeting if you want to distinguish a new proposal from an existing requirement.
Put readable text in the local workflow
Install OGAD, download a suitable local model, and provide the relevant text in chat or through a supported document-reading workflow.
If the sources are in Obsidian, the Pro integration can read local Markdown notes after you select the vault. Check that each read succeeds and that the returned text matches the intended file. A file-search result alone is not a content read.
For a scanned or layout-heavy document, inspect the extracted text before comparing it. A missing table row or incorrect date in extraction can create a false contradiction. Correct the input or review that part manually.
Define the comparison categories
Ask for four categories: direct contradiction, proposed change, compatible extra detail, and missing information. These categories prevent every wording difference from becoming a project problem.
A brief saying “deliver by Friday” and notes saying “client review on Thursday” may be compatible. A brief saying “ten seats” and a confirmed meeting decision saying “twenty seats” may represent a real change. A note saying “could we add ten more?” is still a proposal.
Use these distinctions before asking the model to prioritize issues. Otherwise, a long list of minor wording changes can hide the one decision that actually blocks work.
Ask for a source-based comparison
Try:
Compare the project brief and meeting notes on scope, dates, owners, and acceptance criteria. For each difference, quote the relevant words from both sources and give their section or filename. Classify the difference. Do not infer approval from a suggestion or assign an owner who is not named. List unresolved questions separately. Do not edit either source.
Review the resulting table one row at a time. Check that each quoted passage exists and that nearby text does not change its meaning.
Ask the model to keep dates and quantities in their original form before it normalizes them. “Next Friday” needs the meeting date and time context; a model should not convert it into a calendar date without that information.
Look for an actual resolution
For a direct conflict, identify what evidence would resolve it: a later accepted decision, an approved revision, or confirmation from the responsible person. Search only the relevant follow-up sources instead of asking the model to choose the more plausible statement.
A later timestamp can help order events, but it does not establish authority by itself. An unapproved draft saved yesterday may be less authoritative than a signed-off brief from last week.
If the sources do establish a change, keep the old and new statement with the resolution reference. If they do not, phrase a clear question for the next discussion.
Turn findings into a review note
Ask for a short review note with the issue, effect on the work, evidence, and decision needed. For example: “Seat count differs between the brief and meeting notes; confirm the approved number before estimating the rollout.”
Do not present the review note as a final project decision. A comparison tool can identify a problem, but the responsible people still need to resolve it.
If you ask for a revised brief, label it as a proposed revision. Check every changed requirement before applying it to the original document or sharing it with a client.
Fix common comparison errors
| Problem | Next check |
|---|---|
| Too many minor differences | Restrict the comparison to decisions and requirements |
| Quotes do not match the source | Re-read the text and inspect extraction |
| Notes are treated as approval | Ask for the acceptance evidence |
| Relative dates become exact dates | Supply the meeting date and time zone |
| Missing owner becomes an invented name | Require “not specified” without evidence |
Local text and a downloaded local model can support this comparison without internet after setup. Connected cloud sources need their own network access. Check the selected model before providing private project material.
Resolve one important disagreement first
Open OGAD with one brief and one set of notes. Compare the deadline, scope, or owner that matters most, verify both passages, and turn any unresolved difference into a specific decision request.
Top comments (0)