RFP response.
From source to review.

Start with the submission rules

A proposal assistant is useful when the team can distinguish buyer requirements from supplier evidence. Start by recording the deadline, time zone, required format and mandatory attachments. Keep the original RFP available to the reviewer. An attractive response is still incomplete if a required schedule is absent or an unsupported certification is presented as fact.

Our fictional opportunity asks for a named support lead, a dated rollout plan and a current security overview. The sample supplier has a support rota, an old security document and no approved schedule. Those inputs support an evidence review, rather than a claim that the supplier is ready to submit.

Turn source material into an evidence matrix

Extract one requirement per row. For each row, record the exact source title, section, version and person responsible. A named contact in a rota does not establish that the person is available for this project. A plan drafted by AI does not establish that the delivery team has agreed to its dates.

Requirement: named support lead
Source: sample support rota v3, section 2
Status: source present; confirm project availability

Requirement: dated rollout plan
Source: none supplied
Status: missing; project lead must prepare and approve

Requirement: current security overview
Source: sample overview from 2024
Status: review; ask the security owner for the current version

Prepare the working draft in InriGPT

In a purchased organization, add approved text to the Knowledge library, create a project and assign a reviewer. Use the proposal workflow to prepare a response from the supplied material. Keep the matrix beside the generated text. If a response refers to an unsupported delivery date or control, mark the gap and ask the relevant owner to resolve it.

Use the local business-kit builder to describe the opportunity, requirements and approved evidence before generating anything. The builder creates a structured brief; it does not analyze an RFP or validate a bid. The separate public evidence worksheet can help track manual evidence checks without sending its entries to AI.

Approve commitments before export

Check claims, names, commercial terms, deadlines and attachments against the originals. Have an authorized person approve the final revision. If the draft changes after approval, it needs another review. Export only the version your team intends to use, and complete the buyer’s own submission process separately.

This walkthrough has no customer outcome or measured time saving. Its purpose is to show a reproducible way to expose missing evidence. A useful pilot measure is the number of unsupported claims found during review, recorded using your own real work and review process.

Open the local RFP evidence worksheet

Download and try the workflow

The Markdown file contains the fictional input, a working table and a review checklist. Adapt it to a permitted source set, then confirm every factual claim before use.

See the related InriGPT product · Try a limited demo · Open purchased workspace