---

name: output-table-of-comparisons
description: Use when Claude must present a structured comparison of legal rules, options, or outcomes across jurisdictions, contract types, or scenarios. Ideal for multi-jurisdiction surveys (UAE vs KSA vs Lebanon vs DIFC), option comparisons in deal structuring, and regulatory regime analysis. Triggers on any question asking to compare, contrast, or evaluate multiple alternatives side by side.
license: MIT
metadata:
id: output.table-of-comparisons
category: output
intent: ["format", "comparison", "multi-jurisdiction", "table", "analysis"]
related:
- output-irac-structure
- output-inline-citations-with-pinpoints
- research-jurisdiction-comparison
- output-partner-memo-style
priority: P0
source: Louis — HAQQ Legal AI (github.com/sboghossian/mini-claude-for-legal)
version: "1.0"

Table of Comparisons

A comparison table is the most efficient way to present multi-variable legal analysis. When a user asks "how does X work across UAE, KSA, and Lebanon?" or "what are the pros and cons of these two structures?", a prose answer forces the reader to do the comparison themselves. A table does it for them. This skill governs when and how to build comparison tables that are accurate, readable, and decision-useful.

When to use this

Use a comparison table when:

• The question spans 2+ jurisdictions or 2+ legal options
• Each option has the same set of relevant attributes (statute, threshold, consequence, etc.)
• The user needs to make a decision or recommendation based on the comparison
• The output will be shared with a non-lawyer audience who needs a scannable summary

Do not use a comparison table when:

• There is only one jurisdiction / one option (use IRAC or BLUF)
• The comparison attributes differ significantly between options (use a narrative instead)
• The table would require more than 6 columns (break into two tables or use a narrative)

Standard pattern

| Aspect | Option A / Jurisdiction A | Option B / Jurisdiction B | Option C / Jurisdiction C |
|--------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|
| Governing instrument | … | … | … |
| Key threshold / limit | … | … | … |
| Enforceability | … | … | … |
| Formality requirement | … | … | … |
| Regulatory filing | … | … | … |
| Cost / timing | … | … | … |
| **Summary / recommendation** | … | … | … |

End the table with a bold Summary / recommendation row. Follow the table with a narrative paragraph identifying the preferred option and the decision factors.

Construction rules

Same row order for every column. Apples-to-apples comparison requires that each column addresses the same attribute in the same row. Do not re-order attributes between columns.

Same level of detail per cell. If one cell has a specific article citation, every equivalent cell must have one (or explicitly say "no equivalent provision" or "[not available — verify]").

Cite per cell where it matters. For any cell containing a legal rule or threshold, include the citation in the cell:

UAE FDL 33/2021 art 10 — max 2 years

Flag uncertainty inline. If data for a cell is uncertain: [unverified — confirm with local counsel]. Do not leave cells blank or populated with guesses.

Use a summary row, not a separate section. The recommendation belongs in the last row of the table and in the follow-on paragraph — not buried three paragraphs later.

Example — non-compete enforceability

Aspect	Lebanon	KSA	UAE (federal)	DIFC
Governing instrument	Labor Code arts 35-36	Labor Law RD M/51; HRSD guidelines	FDL 33/2021 art 10; Cabinet Decision 1/2022	DIFC Employment Law (DIFC Law 4/2021)
Statutory max duration	Not specified; courts assess case-by-case	Up to 2 years	Up to 2 years	"Reasonable" (common-law test)
Geographic scope limit	Proportionate to employer's market presence	Proportionate to employer interest	Proportionate to protected interest (Cabinet Decision 1/2022)	Reasonableness standard
Consideration required	Recommended; improves enforceability	Not required	Not required	Not required
Court approach to excess	Void or narrow (split in case law)	Reduce to reasonable scope	Equitable reduction — courts prefer narrowing to voiding	Common-law severance / blue pencil
Notarisation required	Recommended for evidentiary clarity	Not mandatory	Not mandatory	No
Enforceability rating	Mixed — depends heavily on judge	Moderate — proportionality enforced	High if proportionate and justified	High if reasonable and supported by consideration
Recommendation	Include but do not over-rely	Proportionate scope critical	Preferred jurisdiction for enforcement	Preferred for senior / IP-sensitive roles

Sources: LB Labor Code arts 35-36; Saudi Labor Law RD M/51; UAE FDL 33/2021 art 10; Cabinet Decision 1/2022; DIFC Law 4/2021.

Example — deal structure comparison

Aspect	Asset Purchase	Share Purchase	Joint Venture
Target	Specific assets + liabilities	100% of target entity	New or existing co-owned entity
Liability exposure	Buyer takes only selected liabilities	Buyer inherits all historical liabilities	Shared proportionate to stake
UAE regulatory filing	May trigger FDI approval (if strategic sector)	Triggers commercial register transfer	MoA / JV agreement + commercial register
Stamp duty / transfer tax	Transfer fees on real assets	Share transfer fees (if any)	Registration fees
IP transfer	Explicit assignment needed per IP type	IP stays in entity	Licensing or assignment by agreement
Employment	TUPE-equivalent under UAE labor law	Employees stay with entity	New employment contracts typically required
Complexity / timing	Moderate	Lower (cleaner)	Highest
Recommendation	Preferred when liability ring-fencing is essential	Preferred for clean acquisitions	Preferred for strategic partnerships / growth markets

Best practices for MENA multi-jurisdiction tables

• Always include DIFC / ADGM as a separate column from UAE-onshore — the legal frameworks are materially different (common-law vs civil-law influenced).
• For KSA: note that both Hijri and Gregorian dates may appear in source instruments.
• For Lebanon: flag currency / enforcement instability as a separate risk row where relevant.
• For Egypt: include a "Cassation court position" row for any topic where Egyptian jurisprudence varies from the statute's plain text.
• For GCC comparisons: flag whether the rule is federal (KSA, UAE) or emirate-level (Abu Dhabi, Dubai DIFC).

Pair with

After the table, always add:

1. A narrative paragraph: "Based on the above, [preferred option/jurisdiction] is recommended because [1–3 reasons]."
2. Sources block per [[output-source-attribution-block]].
3. If any cell is uncertain, a section: "Information to verify" listing the uncertain cells and the steps to confirm them.

Related skills

• [[output-irac-structure]]
• [[output-inline-citations-with-pinpoints]]
• [[output-source-attribution-block]]
• [[output-partner-memo-style]]
• [[research-jurisdiction-comparison]]