# Compare proposals against source documents: prompt chain Compare proposals for one decision using the documents you supply, show the passage behind each material claim, mark missing evidence, and recommend what to verify before choosing. **Made for:** Anyone choosing between written offers, project proposals or plans with source material to check. ## Before you start Have these ready: - **Proposals to compare** (required): Paste each proposal with a clear name and a blank line between proposals. - **Source documents** (required): Paste the documents that should support the proposals. Give each document a short title. An email, price sheet or schedule counts as a source. - **Decision and must-haves** (required): Say who is choosing and what a proposal must provide. Keep this to one sentence. **How to use this chain** 1. Open a new chat in any AI assistant. 2. Copy the Step 1 prompt, replace every [PASTE HERE: ...] slot with your material, and send it. 3. Keep each answer: later steps ask you to paste it in. Run each step in the same chat or a new one; a new chat keeps steps from blurring together. 4. After a step that has a check, run the check before you move on. ## Step 1: List the material claims Put the promises that matter to this decision in rows before weighing either proposal. Copy this prompt: ````text You are a careful proposal reader. Your task is to list the material claims from each proposal that matter to this decision: [PASTE HERE: Decision and must-haves] Proposals: [PASTE HERE: Proposals to compare] Rules: - Keep the proposal name and quote each claim word for word from the proposal text. - Include price, timing, included work and each stated must-have. Split combined promises into separate rows. - Do not evaluate a claim yet. Do not invent a claim to fill a gap. Return one markdown table: | Proposal | Claim (quote) | ```` **You get back:** A table of relevant claims, each tied to a named proposal. **Check after Step 1: Every claim comes from a proposal** Check by eye: Every quote in the Claim (quote) column appears word for word in the proposals to compare. If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. ## Step 2: Match each claim to a passage Find the source words that back or conflict with each claim, keeping source titles visible. Copy this prompt: ````text You are a source reader who checks proposals against documents. Your task is to match every claim below to one passage in the supplied documents. Claims: [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 1 (List the material claims)] Source documents: [PASTE HERE: Source documents] Rules: - Quote the shortest passage that bears on each claim, word for word. Name its source document. - If no passage bears on a claim, put None found in Passage and name the source as None. - A passage that disagrees with the claim still belongs in the row. - Do not use outside knowledge. Do not treat the proposal itself as an independent source. Return one markdown table: | Proposal | Claim (quote) | Source | Passage (quote) | ```` **You get back:** Each proposal claim beside a source passage or None found. **Check after Step 2: Every evidence passage appears in the source documents** Check by eye: Every quote in the Passage (quote) column appears word for word in the source documents. If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. ## Step 3: Compare support and fit Separate backed, contradicted and missing claims before applying the must-haves. Copy this prompt: ````text You are an impartial decision analyst. Your task is to judge the evidence for each claim and whether each proposal meets the decision's must-haves. Decision and must-haves: [PASTE HERE: Decision and must-haves] Claims and evidence: [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 2 (Match each claim to a passage)] Rules: - Use exactly supported, contradicted or not shown in the Status column. - Supported means the source passage backs the whole claim. Contradicted means it gives a different fact. Not shown means there is no relevant passage. - A missing or contradicted must-have cannot be treated as met. Say what needs confirmation. - Keep all proposals in the table. Do not average prices or add a fact from memory. Return one markdown table: | Proposal | Material point | Status | Source or gap | Must-have impact | ```` **You get back:** A comparison showing what is supported and what prevents a decision. **Check after Step 3: Each material point has one evidence status** Check by eye: Every row of the table has one of "supported", "contradicted" or "not shown" in the Status column. If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. ## Step 4: Write a conditional decision note Make a recommendation only as far as the source evidence permits. Copy this prompt: ````text You are a decision advisor who states uncertainty plainly. Your task is to write a short decision note from the evidence comparison. Decision: [PASTE HERE: Decision and must-haves] Comparison: [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 3 (Compare support and fit)] Proposals: [PASTE HERE: Proposals to compare] Rules: - Name the strongest supported option, or say that no choice is ready if a material must-have is unverified. - Give at most three reasons linked to the comparison rows, and name one tradeoff. - List the exact questions to ask before signing. Treat a proposal claim with no independent passage as unverified. - Do not imply that a source was checked outside the documents above. Do not add estimates or facts. Return markdown with these headings: Recommendation, Evidence, Tradeoff, Confirm before choosing. ```` **You get back:** A conditional recommendation and a short list of source gaps to resolve. **Check after Step 4: The note includes a confirmation list** Check by eye: The answer includes the words "Confirm before choosing". If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. ## Final checks Run these on the finished result. **Final check 1: The comparison does not lose a material claim** Open a new chat (so the check is not swayed by the work) and paste this check prompt: ````text You are a careful reviewer. You do not fix or rewrite the work; you only decide whether it passes one check. The check: The comparison does not lose a material claim Compare the claims in [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 1 (List the material claims)] with the statuses in [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 3 (Compare support and fit)]. Is each material claim represented, and does the recommendation avoid treating a contradicted or not shown must-have as met? Answer FAIL with the omitted or overstated claim. The work to check (the answer from Step 4 (Write a conditional decision note)): [PASTE HERE: the answer from Step 4 (Write a conditional decision note)] Reply with exactly PASS or FAIL on the first line. On the second line, say in one sentence why. If it fails, name the exact item or line that fails. Do not add anything else. ```` If it does not pass: Run the step once more, and add what was wrong to the end of the prompt. If it still does not pass, fix it by hand and make a note of it. **Final check 2: You check the source passages before deciding** Ask yourself: Open the source documents and check each passage used for a must-have. Ask the proposal owner about every contradiction or missing passage before you accept a recommendation. If it does not pass: Carry on, but write down the problem so whoever uses the result knows about it. ## What you end up with - A source-linked table of material proposal claims and their status. - A conditional decision note with tradeoffs and precise questions to resolve. ## Changing this chain - This compares the proposals against the supplied documents, not against facts outside them. - Give every source a title so the passage can be found again. Add the proposal as a source only if you want to check its internal consistency. - If price or dates change, replace the source text and run the comparison again before signing. - For a large procurement, compare one group of requirements at a time and keep the source passages. --- From Logic Lab (logiclabhq.com). Free to use and adapt, with credit.