LearnGrokUse these prompts to turn a draft customer proposal into an approval record. They are for the sales lead who owns the deal and the deal desk reviewer who must see what is supported, what has changed and what still needs a decision.
Start with the full review. Then use the narrower checks where the first review exposes a weak evidence trail, a changed commercial assumption or an incomplete requirement response. Finish with the decision memo, not with a longer email thread.
Key point
Review the evidence, not the confidence
A polished proposal can still contain an unsupported outcome, an unapproved delivery date or a requirement that nobody has answered.
Prepare the review file
- Save the version being reviewed as Draft proposal, with its date or internal revision marker in the document name.
- Collect the discovery calls, customer emails and workshop notes into Discovery evidence. Keep the source name and date with each item.
- Export the customer brief, procurement list or requirements register as Customer requirements. Retain requirement IDs where they exist.
- Create Commercial assumptions from the deal record. Include scope, quantities, pricing basis, discount, term, payment terms, delivery dates, dependencies and exclusions.
- Add the current internal exception record and approval policy. A verbal approval is not evidence unless it has been recorded in the material you paste.
Paste complete sections rather than summaries where possible. A summary often removes the qualification that changes the answer, such as “subject to technical validation” or “estimate only”. Check that you are using your organisation's approved workspace and handling process before pasting customer material. Product behaviour and available controls can be version-dependent, so check the xAI documentation overview where that affects your process.
Watch out
Do not merge sources before review
Keep the proposal, discovery evidence and assumptions as separate labelled inputs. The reviewer needs to see where each claim came from.
Run the checks in order
Run Full proposal approval review first. It produces the working list of gaps, unsupported claims and approval questions. Do not treat its recommendation as the final decision if the proposal contains a formal customer requirements list or recent commercial changes.
Use Discovery evidence trace when a proposal contains claims about outcomes, integrations, business priorities, timelines or customer pain points. It is especially useful where several account team members contributed wording. The output distinguishes a customer statement from an internal assumption.
Use Commercial assumptions check after any change to price, scope, quantities, dates, payment terms or implementation wording. A proposal can match the quoted amount while still committing to an extra service, a fixed date or an unstated dependency.
Use Customer requirement coverage when the customer has supplied a brief, scorecard or requirements list. It gives the reviewer a row for each requirement. This stops a broad marketing statement being mistaken for a response to a specific requirement.
Run Final approval decision memo only after you have either resolved the findings or recorded why they remain open. Paste the specialist outputs unchanged. If you edit an output to make it shorter, preserve the finding, source and status.
Check the output before acting
Read the tables from the status column, not from the top. Start with unsupported, differs, not covered, blocked and approval needed. For every one of those rows, open the cited proposal section and source document.
A finding is useful only if another reviewer can reproduce it. Check that each material finding has all of the following:
- A specific proposal section, heading or quoted sentence.
- A named evidence source, requirement ID or assumption field.
- A status that matches the cited material.
- An owner who can resolve the item.
- A clear action, such as remove wording, obtain confirmation or request approval.
Check
A supported claim has a trace
You should be able to point from the customer-facing sentence to a source sentence or an approved assumption without filling in the gap yourself.
Be alert for false certainty. The model may group similar phrases together even when the details differ. “Target launch in June” is not the same as “delivery by 1 June”. “Supports integration” is not the same as “will configure the named integration”. Check quantities, dates, named systems, customer responsibilities and exclusions word by word.
Also check negative findings. If the output says none identified, scan the proposal for the fields that were absent from the pasted assumptions. An absence can mean there is no issue, or it can mean the source material was incomplete. The correct result in the second case is unclear or not recorded.
Decide what happens next
Use send only when the final memo shows no blocking issue, no unsupported material claim and no unapproved commercial difference. Ask the named approver to make the decision. The memo supports an internal decision, it does not replace the organisation's commercial, legal or finance review.
Use revise when the account team can correct the proposal itself. Assign each correction to one owner and re-run the relevant narrow prompt after the edit. Do not re-run every check if only a single requirement response changed, unless that change affects scope or assumptions.
Use hold when the next action is outside the proposal team. Typical examples are a customer clarification, missing discovery evidence, an unrecorded exception or an internal approval question. Record what evidence will close the issue and who must provide it.
Stop
Do not send with a placeholder decision
TBC, “to be confirmed” and implied commitments can create the same approval problem as an unsupported claim. Resolve, remove or clearly qualify them.
When the review does not work
If the output is vague, paste fewer documents at once and run the evidence trace or commercial check first. If it misses a requirement, supply the requirement register with IDs and priorities instead of a narrative brief. If sources conflict, do not ask it to choose the more likely version. Mark the conflict, identify the owner and hold the affected commitment until the source is confirmed.
If the result is too long, keep the full table for the review file and use the final decision memo for the approver. The short memo should point to the unresolved issue, not hide it.
