Compare proposals against source documents

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.

Sample results: runs and scores on this page are illustrations while testing is set up. How we test

Who it is for: Anyone choosing between written offers, project proposals or plans with source material to check.
Time: 20 minutes

Download it, in the format you use

Choose one format

Prompt chain
Copy each step into ChatGPT or Claude, one after another.
Checklist
Follow the steps and check off the checks by hand.
Claude skill
A folder Claude loads, so it follows the steps by itself.
n8n file
Import into n8n and connect your own AI account.

Open in the Editor

Using a download:How to use this in n8n How to install a Claude skill

How it runs

Select a part to see its prompt, input, output and check.

The same job, with and without the template

Sample

This comparison uses the Typical sample. Try an input below for a result guide matched to each sample.

One plain prompt

Compare these two office care proposals and recommend one. The proposal text and source documents are pasted below.

Harbor Plan is the best choice. It offers the same weekly visits and included materials as Cedar Plan, starts in June and saves $50 per month. Choose Harbor unless the later start is a problem.

Problem:The plain answer takes Harbor's materials promise at face value and recommends the lower listed fee without checking the conflicting email.

With this template

Recommendation

Cedar Plan is the only offer whose weekly visits, included materials and June start are supported by the supplied documents. Keep Harbor open until its materials charge is clarified.

Evidence

Cedar price sheet, May 2, says "Weekly visits cost $480 per month. Materials are included. Earliest start is June 3." Harbor email, May 4, says "Weekly visits cost $430 per month. Materials are billed separately. Earliest start is June 10." Harbor's proposal says materials are included, which that email contradicts.

Tradeoff

Cedar's stated monthly fee is $50 higher than Harbor's listed fee. Harbor's complete monthly cost is unknown because its email says materials are billed separately.

Confirm before choosing

Ask Harbor for its materials charge and an updated written offer. Confirm that Cedar's price sheet is still current before signing.

Check:Every claim comes from a proposal: Each promise in the evidence table quotes one of the two proposals.
Check:Every evidence passage appears in the source documents: Each evidence passage appears in the named price sheet or email.
Check:Each material point has one evidence status: The materials conflict is marked contradicted rather than supported.
Check:The note includes a confirmation list: The decision note ends with questions to confirm before choosing.
Check:The comparison does not lose a material claim: Price, visits, materials and starts remain in the comparison.
For your read:You check the source passages before deciding: Check both named documents and seek a revised Harbor offer.

Runs and scores

Sample

Claude, Sonnet model

October 12, 2026, typical sample

Check:Every claim comes from a proposal
Eight proposal promises are kept with their named offers.
Check:Every evidence passage appears in the source documents
The price sheet and email supply the cited passages.
Check:Each material point has one evidence status
Harbor materials are contradicted by its email.
Check:The note includes a confirmation list
The note asks for the missing materials charge.
Check:The comparison does not lose a material claim
Price, visits, materials and start dates remain visible.
For your read:You check the source passages before deciding
Inspect the documents and updated offer.

Fixed: Nothing needed fixing in this illustrative run; the source conflict stays visible.

Met 5 of 5, plus 1 for your read

1 check is for your read: the tool hands it to you.

ChatGPT, GPT model

October 13, 2026, easy sample

Check:Every claim comes from a proposal
Both room offers keep their quoted price, date, seats and projector claims.
Check:Every evidence passage appears in the source documents
Both venue sheets support the offer passages.
Check:Each material point has one evidence status
Both offers are supported against the stated must-haves.
Check:The note includes a confirmation list
The note checks the date and current price before booking.
Check:The comparison does not lose a material claim
The recommendation keeps the capacity tradeoff.
For your read:You check the source passages before deciding
Inspect both venue sheets before booking.

Fixed: Nothing needed fixing in this illustrative run; the capacity tradeoff stays visible.

Met 5 of 5, plus 1 for your read

1 check is for your read: the tool hands it to you.

n8n, import format 2.20

October 14, 2026, tricky sample

Check:Every claim comes from a proposal
Each bid’s date, fee and special promise is retained.
Check:Every evidence passage appears in the source documents
No passage is invented for the certificate or step-free venue.
Check:Each material point has one evidence status
Both unverified must-haves are marked not shown.
Check:The note includes a confirmation list
The note asks both suppliers for the missing proof.
Check:The comparison does not lose a material claim
No bid is declared ready from price alone.
For your read:You check the source passages before deciding
Inspect new proof before choosing.

Fixed: Nothing needed fixing in this illustrative run; neither bid is chosen without proof.

Met 5 of 5, plus 1 for your read

1 check is for your read: the tool hands it to you.

Try an input SampleTypical: Two office care proposalsEasy: Two backed room offersTricky: Training bids with missing proof

One supplier's included materials claim conflicts with its email; the other offer is supported but costs more.

What this sample should produce

Cedar's $480, weekly visits, materials and June 3 start are backed by its price sheet. Harbor's $430 and June 10 start are backed, but its materials claim conflicts with its email. The cheaper price needs a full materials cost before choosing.

A result guide for this invented input, not an AI reply.

Proposals to compare: Cedar Plan: $480 per month. Weekly visits. Materials included. Starts June 3. Harbor Plan: $430 per month. Weekly visits. Materials included. Starts June 10.
Source documents: Cedar price sheet, May 2: Weekly visits cost $480 per month. Materials are included. Earliest start is June 3. Harbor email, May 4: Weekly visits cost $430 per month. Materials are billed separately. Earliest start is June 10.
Decision and must-haves: Choose office care with weekly visits, materials included and a June start.

Try Step 1 with this sample

This is the selected sample placed into the first prompt. Copy or open it in your own AI, then use the downloaded chain for later steps and checks.

You are a careful proposal reader.

Your task is to list the material claims from each proposal that matter to this decision: Choose office care with weekly visits, materials included and a June start.

Proposals:
Cedar Plan: $480 per month. Weekly visits. Materials included. Starts June 3.

Harbor Plan: $430 per month. Weekly visits. Materials included. Starts June 10.


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) |

Send to AIOpen ChatGPTOpens a blank chat. This result is copied for you to paste and review there.

The steps, and the check on each

Step 1: List the material claims
Put the promises that matter to this decision in rows before weighing either proposal.
Hands back: A table of relevant claims, each tied to a named proposal.
Check:Every claim comes from a proposal
A plain rule. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Step 2: Match each claim to a passage
Find the source words that back or conflict with each claim, keeping source titles visible.
Hands back: Each proposal claim beside a source passage or None found.
Check:Every evidence passage appears in the source documents
A plain rule. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Step 3: Compare support and fit
Separate backed, contradicted and missing claims before applying the must-haves.
Hands back: A comparison showing what is supported and what prevents a decision.
Check:Each material point has one evidence status
A plain rule. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Step 4: Write a conditional decision note
Make a recommendation only as far as the source evidence permits.
Hands back: A conditional recommendation and a short list of source gaps to resolve.
Check:The note includes a confirmation list
A plain rule. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).

After the last step

Check:The comparison does not lose a material claim
A second look by the AI. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Check:You check the source passages before deciding
You check this one. If it fails, it is flagged for you.

What you need first

Proposals to compare(needed)
Paste each proposal with a clear name and a blank line between proposals.
Source documents(needed)
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(needed)
Say who is choosing and what a proposal must provide. Keep this to one sentence.

Ways to adapt it

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.

Change any step or check in the Editor, then download it again.

The scoring guide

Sample

Each template check has a criterion marked met or not met; a person must still make the handed checks. (The guides in Quality rate a whole piece of work on three levels.) Under each one is how the three sample runs scored.

Download the scoring guide (Markdown)

Every claim comes from a proposal
A plain rule
Meets:Every material claim is quoted from a named proposal.
Does not meet:A claim is reworded, invented or separated from its proposal.
Claude:Met
ChatGPT:Met
n8n:Met
Every evidence passage appears in the source documents
A plain rule
Meets:Each cited passage appears word for word in the supplied source documents, or says None found.
Does not meet:A cited passage is invented, paraphrased or taken only from the proposal.
Claude:Met
ChatGPT:Met
n8n:Met
Each material point has one evidence status
A plain rule
Meets:Every row has supported, contradicted or not shown, and must-have gaps remain visible.
Does not meet:A row has another status or treats a missing must-have as met.
Claude:Met
ChatGPT:Met
n8n:Met
The note includes a confirmation list
A plain rule
Meets:The note names what to confirm before choosing.
Does not meet:The note omits confirmation questions or signs off on an unverified promise.
Claude:Met
ChatGPT:Met
n8n:Met
The comparison does not lose a material claim
A second look by the AI
Meets:Every material claim appears in the comparison and the recommendation respects its status.
Does not meet:A material claim disappears or a contradicted claim is treated as proven.
Claude:Met
ChatGPT:Met
n8n:Met
You check the source passages before deciding
You check this one
Meets:You check must-have passages and seek proof for each gap before accepting the recommendation.
Does not meet:You accept the recommendation without reading the source passages or resolving a material gap.
Claude:For your read
ChatGPT:For your read
n8n:For your read

Claude: met 5 of 5, plus 1 for your read

ChatGPT: met 5 of 5, plus 1 for your read

n8n: met 5 of 5, plus 1 for your read

Learn from this template

The evidence step pairs each proposal claim with a passage from a separate source. The comparison keeps unsupported and conflicting promises visible, so the final note can ask for proof instead of silently accepting them.

Where to see it: step 2 (Match each claim to a passage); step 3 (Compare support and fit).

Read the guide: Checks Take the lesson: Checks (lesson 4)

More to read:Adapting a template

Practice:Trace the number Scoring guides

Which one fits?

Use Compare options and get a recommendation when you only have descriptions of the options and want to weigh them without checking independent documents.

Related templates

All Decide templates

Decide

Write up a decision in one minute10 min
Fits one minute; every reason is one the notes give

Write

Write a scope of work20 min
Every figure comes from your notes; gaps become questions

Review

Fact-check against sources15 min
Every claim gets a verdict and a quote from your sources

Last run: October 14, 2026: n8n, import format 2.20 (sample run)
Tools and versions: Claude, Sonnet model; ChatGPT, GPT model; n8n, import format 2.20
What was checked: The files, against each tool’s import format, and 3 sample runs, each check’s finding recorded.
Version: 1.0
What changed: First release.

Report a problem with this template How we test

Compare proposals against source documents

Download it, in the format you use

How it runs

The same job, with and without the template

One plain prompt

With this template

Recommendation

Evidence

Tradeoff

Confirm before choosing

Runs and scores

Claude, Sonnet model

ChatGPT, GPT model

n8n, import format 2.20

The steps, and the check on each

Step 1: List the material claims

Step 2: Match each claim to a passage

Step 3: Compare support and fit

Step 4: Write a conditional decision note

After the last step

What you need first

Ways to adapt it

The scoring guide

Learn from this template

Which one fits?

Related templates

Decide

Write

Review