Table of Comparisons

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

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

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]]