These accounts describe the work delivered and the decisions clients faced. Names are shortened to protect employment discussions.
“The review caught that my target bonus was stated in the email but not actually incorporated into the contract. I went back with one precise question and received an addendum before signing.” — Mara K., product lead, Berlin
“I had two offers with nearly identical totals. The comparison showed how much of one depended on a first-year guarantee. The worksheet was plain and useful. I would have liked an extra day to digest it before the call, but the conclusions were sound.” — Jonas R., finance manager, Hamburg
“We rehearsed the wording for asking about the salary-review date and relocation repayment. It made the HR conversation calmer; one point moved and one did not, which felt like a realistic result.” — Eleni P., engineering manager, Munich
A comparison that changed the decision
A client relocating from the Netherlands was weighing a larger target bonus against a higher fixed salary. We mapped the probationary period, pro-rating rule and company-performance gate. Once the conditional amount was modelled separately, the client chose the offer with lower nominal upside but stronger guaranteed pay and a clearer review date.
A clause that required legal advice
During a package review, broad post-contractual wording appeared alongside a bonus forfeiture condition. Instead of speculating, we isolated the commercial impact and referred the client to an employment lawyer for a binding interpretation. The client then returned for a negotiation-preparation session with the legal position established.