LearnGrokUse one comparison sheet for every live offer, then ask the model to turn that checked sheet into a vendor brief. This gives your vendor a decision document, not a sales pitch for the highest figure. It is for estate agents and sales negotiators who need to advise on which offer to accept or progress.
The habit is simple: capture evidence first, compare against criteria second, write the brief last. Do not paste a mixture of call notes, emails and assumptions into the model and expect it to identify the gaps reliably.
Key point
Compare terms before price
An offer is a package of price, funding, chain, conditions and timing. Record each part separately before recommending a next step.
1. Set the vendor's decision criteria
Before comparing buyers, open the instruction notes and write down the criteria the vendor has agreed. Use the same fields for every offer. This stops the latest or loudest buyer setting the agenda.
Create an offer comparison sheet with these columns:
| Field | What to record | Evidence to request or check |
|---|---|---|
| Offer price | Amount offered and whether it is subject to renegotiation | Written offer or buyer email |
| Conditions | Sale subject to survey, sale of another property, fixtures, inclusions or other stated terms | Buyer wording, memorandum notes |
| Funding evidence | Cash evidence, mortgage agreement in principle, deposit position or other material support | Evidence received, date checked, gaps |
| Chain position | First-time buyer, chain-free, related sale status and known chain length | Buyer statement and progress notes |
| Proposed dates | Target exchange, completion and any immovable deadline | Buyer or solicitor communication where available |
| Risks and unknowns | Missing evidence, unclear wording, unconfirmed chain details or conflicting dates | Specific question and owner |
Add a short vendor priority order above the table. For example: certainty of completion first, completion by a stated date second, net price third. Use the vendor's actual priorities, not a standard ranking.
Watch out
Do not turn absence into reassurance
“No chain details supplied” is not the same as “chain-free”. Mark it as unconfirmed until you have evidence.
2. Capture each offer as evidence, not prose
For each buyer, paste only the relevant written offer, funding evidence summary, call notes and dates into a separate working record. Label each item with its source and date. Keep quotations distinct from your own observations.
Use this prompt after you have removed information the vendor does not need to see, such as unnecessary personal details:
Create a structured record for this property offer.
Use these headings exactly:
- Offer price
- Conditions attached to the offer
- Funding evidence received
- Funding evidence still needed
- Chain position
- Proposed exchange and completion dates
- Facts confirmed in writing
- Statements not yet verified
- Risks or ambiguities
- Questions for the buyer or their agent
Do not infer missing facts. If information is absent, write “not supplied”.
Keep direct evidence separate from interpretation.
[Paste the buyer's offer material here]
Repeat this for every buyer. Save the results alongside the source material, with the buyer label and the date checked. You now have consistent records, rather than several differently worded summaries.
Note
Keep the source trail
The brief should be easy to update when a buyer sends new evidence. Retain the original email or note behind every “confirmed” entry.
3. Compare against the agreed priorities
Put the structured records into one prompt with the vendor's priorities. Ask for a comparison, not a recommendation at first. This prevents the model from deciding what matters before you have checked the facts.
Compare these buyer offers for a vendor using the priority order below.
Vendor priorities:
1. [Insert priority]
2. [Insert priority]
3. [Insert priority]
For each buyer, report:
- price and material conditions
- funding evidence status: evidenced, partly evidenced, or not evidenced
- chain status: confirmed, partly confirmed, or unconfirmed
- dates and whether they meet the vendor's requirement
- unanswered risks
Then provide a comparison table. Do not rank buyers. Do not assume that a higher offer is preferable. State only facts supplied and label every gap.
[Paste the structured buyer records here]
Read the table against the source records. Correct any collapsed detail. For example, a mortgage agreement in principle and confirmed mortgage application are different statuses. A proposed completion date and a date agreed by all parties are different statuses.
If the property file is large, use smaller batches and combine only the checked records. Input and output limits vary by version, so check the current guidance in the xAI documentation overview.
4. Write the vendor decision brief
Once you have verified the comparison, ask for a concise brief. Give the model the checked table, not the raw messages. The purpose is to help the vendor choose what to accept, reject or progress subject to answers.
Draft a vendor decision brief from the checked offer comparison below.
Write in plain English. Use these sections:
1. Decision required
2. Offer summary table
3. Strengths and trade-offs of each offer
4. Unanswered questions before acceptance or progression
5. Suggested next action for each buyer
Do not give legal, financial or mortgage advice.
Do not present assumptions as facts.
Do not recommend a buyer unless the stated vendor priorities support it.
Where evidence is missing, say what needs confirming and who should provide it.
Keep the brief suitable for sending to a vendor after agent review.
[Paste checked comparison table and priorities here]
Your review matters more than the wording. Check that the proposed next action is operational, such as “request evidence of funds before progressing” or “ask for a confirmed chain update and revised completion expectation”. It should not promise that a transaction will complete or imply that a buyer's funding is certain.
Check
Test the brief against one hard question
Ask: “Which statement in this brief could I prove from the file?” If you cannot point to a source, change it to an unanswered question or remove it.
5. Spot a brief that is going wrong
Use this table before sending anything to the vendor.
| If you see this | It usually means | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| A buyer is called chain-free, but no source is cited | A call note has been treated as confirmation | Recheck the wording and label the status unconfirmed if needed |
| The highest offer appears first and gets most attention | The comparison has drifted into price-only ranking | Reorder the brief around the vendor's stated priorities |
| “Cash buyer” appears without evidence status | A buyer description has replaced proof | Request or record the evidence received and its date |
| Dates are shown as firm, but came from a verbal estimate | Proposed and agreed dates have been merged | State the date as proposed and name the missing confirmation |
| Risks are vague, such as “chain may be an issue” | The action is not clear | Write the exact question, recipient and deadline for response |
Do not send a polished brief merely because it reads confidently. Check names, property address, offer amounts, dates, conditions and the status of every document. A clean layout can make an unsupported statement look more reliable than it is.
When the process does not work
Stop and return to the offer records if the buyers' terms are not comparable, the vendor's priorities are unclear, or funding and chain evidence are missing. Send focused questions to the relevant buyer or agent, then update only the affected fields.
If the model adds facts, removes a condition, or confuses one buyer with another, shorten the input. Provide one labelled record per buyer and require “not supplied” for every missing field. If it still produces an unreliable comparison, prepare the sheet manually and use the model only to draft the vendor-facing wording after your review.
