## TL;DR
When a term is redefined, retire the old definition and re-extract everything that depended on it. Diff the definition text across versions, invalidate downstream extractions (like the exclusions list) that were built from the old wording, and rebuild them from the new definition. The exclusions came from the original "Confidential Information" definition, so they describe carve-outs that no longer exist.

```text
defined-term drift  -  Amendment 2 redefined "Confidential Information" but the agent still extracted exclusions from the original definition
```

## Steps
1. Hash each defined term's full definition text per document version.
   Expected: "Confidential Information" has different hashes in v1 and Amendment 2, proving drift
2. On a hash change, invalidate every extraction derived from that term: exclusions, inclusions, scope notes.
   Expected: the v1 exclusions list is marked stale the moment Amendment 2 is ingested
3. Re-extract the dependent fields from the new definition text.
   Expected: the exclusions list is rebuilt from the Amendment 2 definition
4. Show the old and new definition side by side in the report with the changed exclusions highlighted.
   Expected: the operator sees which carve-outs survived and which did not
5. Gate the pipeline: no report ships while a redefined term has un-rebuilt dependents.
   Expected: stale-dependent extractions block the run instead of shipping silently

## Use this when
- An amendment redefined a term and dependent extractions (exclusions, carve-outs, scope) look outdated.
- The agent's exclusions list does not match the current definition text.
- You are validating NDA or confidentiality extraction against the latest amendment.
- A term's definition hash differs between versions in your index.

## Not for this skill when
- The definition wording changed cosmetically but the exclusions are identical.
- No amendment touched the term; the exclusions were wrong from the start (that is an extraction bug, not drift).
- The term has no dependent extractions; only the definition itself matters.
- You need legal advice on whether the new exclusions are enforceable.

## Variant phrasings
### exclusions extracted from superseded definition
### redefined term, stale carve-outs in output
### "Confidential Information" exclusions do not match current definition
### amendment changed definition, agent kept old exclusions

## Why it happens
Pipelines extract the definition once and the exclusions once, then file both away as done. The redefinition in Amendment 2 is parsed as ordinary text, and nothing links it back to the already-extracted exclusions list. The dependency between "definition" and "things derived from the definition" exists in the lawyer's head but not in the pipeline's data model, so the derived fields never get rebuilt.
## Edge cases
- The amendment adds exclusions without restating the definition. Treat any amendment text touching the term as a drift event and re-extract.
- The redefinition narrows the term and some old exclusions become meaningless. Drop them explicitly and note the drop; do not carry them forward.
- The term is defined identically in two documents with different exclusions. Keep per-document dependents; do not share one exclusions list.
- Only part of the definition changed (one carve-out reworded). Still re-extract; partial drift is still drift.

## Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_rMrqyFbZRzBu0gjQPncmGA