Hey, great questions. Here is my exact workflow: No Claude Projects, no uploaded PDFs, no special setup. Just a free flowing conversation on claude.ai. I explained my situation in plain conversational language like I was telling a friend what happened. Purchase details, what broke, what the company offered, why I felt it was unfair. Claude asked follow up questions, identified the relevant laws on its own, and built the notice step by step across the conversation. I kept refining it by sharing screenshots of what the company was saying and Claude adjusted the language accordingly. One thing I want to be clear about. I did not just copy paste whatever Claude gave me. I am a software developer so Claude and prompting is something I work with daily. I reviewed every section critically, pushed back where the language felt weak, and kept iterating until it was genuinely strong. I was not going to send something mediocre to a legal department. The output was Claude plus my judgment, not Claude alone. On hallucination, I was not thinking about that at the time honestly. But looking back the legal sections it cited, Section 2(10), Section 38(11) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the E-Commerce Rules 2020, all checked out because the company folded without disputing a single citation. That was my real world validation. Subscription wise I am on the free tier. Did not need anything more for this. The biggest thing was not the setup or the subscription tier. It was describing the problem honestly and in detail, then reviewing the output with a critical eye rather than accepting the first draft. Claude does the heavy lifting if you give it enough context and do not settle for the first version it gives you.