Who it's for
professionals who regularly analyze long documents, contracts, policy papers, or multi-step reports as part of their role
What participants can do by the end
Identify Claude’s core capabilities, extended context, coding, analysis, writing, and reasoning, and explain how they differ from general-purpose AI tools. Use Claude for three professional tasks, long-document analysis, structured reasoning, and multi-step research synthesis. Apply Claude’s prompt structure, role assignment, context setting, and output formatting, to produce noticeably higher-quality outputs than a default query. Use Claude’s extended context window to analyze a document longer than ten pages and produce a structured executive summary. Operate Claude’s project memory, file upload, and conversation continuity features to build a workflow they can reuse without re-explaining context every time
How the three days build:
Day one compares Claude against ChatGPT and Gemini in plain language, identifies the GCC use cases where Claude’s strengths matter most, policy analysis, research, and complex documents, then goes hands-on with role assignment and context-setting prompts before uploading and querying a genuinely long document to produce a structured executive summary. Day two covers multi-step research, structuring a complex investigation into stages Claude can work through, and checking Claude’s reasoning to catch and correct errors, before building a repeatable Claude workflow using Projects, file uploads, and conversation continuity across sessions. Day three is entirely about responsible use, what should never go into Claude, confidential data, personal information, IP, how Claude’s data handling actually works, and what GCC organizational policies to check before using it at work.
This is the program for the person whose real bottleneck is documents, not drafting.
Why the tool choice matters here specifically
A general AI tool that loses track of a document’s earlier sections halfway through an analysis doesn’t just produce a slightly worse summary; it produces a confidently wrong one, and the professional reading it often has no way to catch the gap. For roles built around policy review, contract analysis, or multi-report research, that failure mode is expensive in a way it isn’t for a quick email draft. This program exists because the tool matters as much as the prompt when the input is genuinely long and genuinely complex.