INRICollect evidence, not just previous answers
Start with the buyer’s questions and the current documents that support your response. A previous proposal can be useful, but its claims may describe a service version, customer reference, or support commitment that is no longer accurate. Gather the capability statement, delivery process, support policy, and approved reference material that actually apply to this bid. Identify a document owner for each source. This gives a reviewer someone to ask when the source and the proposed answer disagree.
Map the requirements before writing the narrative
Create a simple table with the requirement, available evidence, responsible person, and any open question. Separate mandatory criteria from optional preferences. Record word limits and submission formats beside the relevant sections. You can ask an assistant to prepare an initial checklist from the buyer’s wording, but verify that no requirements were skipped. A polished response to the wrong question is still an incomplete bid. Give special attention to requirements involving eligibility, certifications, dates, and financial information.
Make a small, well-bounded AI request
For an initial test, choose one question rather than the entire submission. Provide its exact wording, a relevant evidence passage, and instructions to flag missing facts instead of filling them in. Ask for a draft within the required word limit and a separate list of unresolved items. Remove information that is confidential and unnecessary for the answer. Compare the draft with the supplied source. Look for broadened commitments, unsupported adjectives, changed numbers, or references that the evidence does not establish.
Use a reviewer checklist before submission
Confirm each factual claim, check the response against the buyer’s question, and ensure the final file follows the specified format. Have an authorized person approve customer references and commitments. Record corrections so future prompts can be more precise, while keeping the source itself current. If a team shares the work, save a template for the review format and keep related drafting in a shared conversation. The assistant’s role is to help prepare work, not certify its truth or decide that a bid should be submitted.
Decide what success means for the pilot
Measure the task you are trying to improve. Preparation time, missing requirements, and reviewer corrections are more useful early indicators than a general claim that the proposal sounds better. Compare like-for-like sections and document the review effort still required. Start with INRI GPT’s sample demo, then use an approved source excerpt if the workflow fits. An individual proposal service and an organization workspace serve different needs; inspect the pricing and documented limits before buying. A generated response cannot guarantee eligibility or a successful award.
Try a source-based workflow
Explore the related product and its limits, or use a sample in the free demo before choosing a package.