## TL;DR
Never resolve a bare "the Agreement" in a side letter by guessing. Build the candidate set from the deal bundle (agreements attached to the same deal as the side letter), score candidates by parties, date proximity, and subject matter, and require one decisive winner before extracting. Side letters sit alongside several agreements and their shorthand inherits nothing, so any single pick is a coin flip the agent should not take.

```text
side letter says "notwithstanding Section 8 of the Agreement"  -  the agent couldn't tell which of four agreements it meant
```

## Steps
1. Collect the candidate set: every agreement in the same deal bundle as the side letter (same parties, same transaction folder).
   Expected: four candidate agreements listed, none assumed
2. Score each candidate: matching parties first, then date proximity to the side letter, then subject-matter overlap with the quoted section.
   Expected: ranked candidate list with scores, top candidate clearly ahead or clearly not
3. Extract from the top candidate only if its score is decisively ahead; otherwise extract Section 8 from all four and mark the citation unresolved-ambiguous.
   Expected: no silent single pick; the output shows the ambiguity
4. Record the resolution method per citation: which candidate, why, and the score margin.
   Expected: every citation carries an audit trail an operator can check
5. If the side letter's recitals name the agreement ('reference is made to the Merger Agreement dated...'), use that as a hard constraint that overrides scoring.
   Expected: recital-named agreements always win

## Use this when
- A side letter, amendment, or notice references "the Agreement" without naming it.
- The deal bundle has two or more agreements and the agent must pick one.
- The agent previously guessed and picked the wrong agreement.
- You are auditing citations that came from ancillary documents.

## Not for this skill when
- The side letter names the agreement explicitly in its recitals or title.
- There is exactly one agreement in the bundle.
- The ambiguity is about which section, not which document.
- You need a lawyer's reading of which agreement the side letter modifies.

## Variant phrasings
### side letter "the Agreement" ambiguous across multiple agreements
### agent cannot resolve which agreement an ancillary document refers to
### "notwithstanding Section 8" - which agreement
### bare "the Agreement" reference in a side letter

## Why it happens
Side letters are short and informal, so drafters write "the Agreement" assuming the reader knows the deal context. The agent has no deal context, only text, and its resolver is built for the common case where one document dominates the run. Faced with four plausible agreements, it either picks the first indexed or the largest, both wrong as often as right, and the failure only shows up when someone checks the quoted Section 8 against the wrong document.
## Edge cases
- The side letter modifies an agreement outside the bundle. Score everything low and mark external-unresolved rather than forcing a local pick.
- Two agreements share parties and date (e.g. MSA and DPA signed together). Fall back to subject-matter match on the quoted section's topic.
- The side letter is itself amended by a later side letter. Resolve the reference through the latest side letter first.
- Section 8 exists in only one candidate. Existence of the target section is a strong disambiguator; use it before scoring.

## Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_1UKzlvQ-ReAV9Zt3AhUtBA