# Compare proposals against source documents: checklist

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.

## Before you start

- [ ] Have ready: Proposals to compare
  Paste each proposal with a clear name and a blank line between proposals.
- [ ] Have ready: Source documents
  Paste the documents that should support the proposals. Give each document a short title. An email, price sheet or schedule counts as a source.
- [ ] Have ready: Decision and must-haves
  Say who is choosing and what a proposal must provide. Keep this to one sentence.

## Step 1: List the material claims

- [ ] Put the promises that matter to this decision in rows before weighing either proposal.
- [ ] You have: A table of relevant claims, each tied to a named proposal.
- [ ] Check: Every quote in the Claim (quote) column appears word for word in the proposals to compare.
  A plain rule you can check by eye. If not: 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.
- [ ] You have: Each proposal claim beside a source passage or None found.
- [ ] Check: Every quote in the Passage (quote) column appears word for word in the source documents.
  A plain rule you can check by eye. If not: 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.
- [ ] You have: A comparison showing what is supported and what prevents a decision.
- [ ] Check: Every row of the table has one of "supported", "contradicted" or "not shown" in the Status column.
  A plain rule you can check by eye. If not: 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.
- [ ] You have: A conditional recommendation and a short list of source gaps to resolve.
- [ ] Check: The answer includes the words "Confirm before choosing".
  A plain rule you can check by eye. If not: 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

- [ ] Check: Compare the claims in {{steps.claims}} with the statuses in {{steps.compare}}. 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.
  Checked by a second AI prompt. If not: 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.
- [ ] Check: 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.
  Checked by you. If not: Carry on, but write down the problem so whoever uses the result knows about it.

## 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.

---

From Logic Lab (logiclabhq.com). Free to use and adapt, with credit.