LearnGrokUse this pack to compare supplier proposals against the same operating requirements, rather than comparing the quality of their sales writing. It is for operations managers and procurement leads who need a documented route from source evidence to a purchasing decision.
Start with a fixed criteria register. Then extract evidence for each supplier before you ask for a recommendation. This order matters because a matrix is only useful when every supplier has been judged against the same test.
Key point
Compare evidence, not promises
A supplier claim only counts as strong evidence when the relevant document states the commitment, owner and operating conditions.
1. Assemble the decision file
Create one working folder for the procurement. Put the following documents in it before running the prompts:
- The business requirements and target operating model.
- Each supplier's proposal.
- The draft contract, order form and service description.
- Service level schedules, support policies and reporting examples.
- Implementation plans, assumptions and dependency lists.
- Your internal constraints, including integrations, data, rollout dates, staffing and acceptance requirements.
Give each document a clear name, such as Supplier A proposal, Supplier A SLA and Internal rollout constraints. Keep the source documents separate. Do not merge them into one edited summary, as you will lose the distinction between a proposal claim and a contractual commitment.
If a document is long, work section by section. The amount of material the model can handle varies by the version you are using. Check the current product documentation at xAI documentation before setting your review method.
Note
Keep source labels
The evidence location column is what lets a stakeholder return to the relevant clause, page or heading instead of debating a paraphrase.
2. Agree the criteria before reading supplier claims
Run Set the operational criteria using your internal requirements and stakeholder notes. Review the resulting register with the people who will operate the service. In particular, confirm the Must have items. A supplier should not pass merely because it performs well on less important criteria.
Use criteria that can be evidenced. For example, replace good support with the support hours, channels, response target, escalation route and named service review expected. Replace easy implementation with the activities, dependencies, acceptance evidence and accountable owners required for go-live.
Do not let the criteria become a contract review checklist. Keep operational questions distinct, such as whether the supplier can deliver reporting at the required frequency. Mark contract wording, liability and enforceability as items for your appropriate commercial or legal review.
Check
The criteria register is ready when
Every Must have has a clear test, a named validator and a stated source of evidence. If a criterion cannot be tested, rewrite it before scoring.
3. Build one evidence matrix per supplier
Run Extract proposal evidence separately for every supplier. Paste the same approved criteria register each time. This prevents a supplier with a more detailed proposal from setting the terms of comparison.
Read the Gap or contradiction and Assumption to validate columns before looking at any scores. They usually expose the real decision work. Typical examples include an implementation plan that assumes your data is ready, a service level that excludes a critical support period, or a proposal that promises a report not listed in the service description.
Use Compare service levels and responsibilities where delivery terms appear in several documents. This is especially useful when a headline availability target looks similar across suppliers but maintenance exclusions, incident definitions or customer duties differ. Use Test implementation readiness if changing supplier will require migration, configuration, training or new integrations.
4. Make the matrix decision-ready
Once each supplier has an evidence matrix, run Produce the decision matrix. Paste the completed matrices without removing inconvenient gaps. The recommendation should be the result of the evidence, not a justification for a preference already made.
A weighted score is a sorting aid, not a decision on its own. An unclear or failed Must have can outweigh a higher total score. Treat scores as a way to see where the comparison needs attention, then use the conditions and actions list to control what happens next.
| If you see this | Do this | Do not do this |
|---|---|---|
| A proposal claim with no supporting schedule or clause | Ask for the commitment to be documented | Score it as fully met |
| Different terms in the proposal and contract | Mark it unclear and request confirmation | Choose the more favourable wording |
| A missing implementation owner | Assign an internal question and hold the risk open | Assume the supplier owns it |
| A failed Must have | Escalate an exception or stop progression | Offset it with several minor strengths |
Watch out
Do not average away a blocker
A high weighted score can conceal an unmet requirement that would prevent safe operation after award.
5. Check whether the output is wrong
Check every strong conclusion against the source location. If the quoted section does not state the claimed commitment, change the assessment to Unclear. Check that identical criteria, weights and score rules were used for every supplier. Check that missing information is recorded as missing, rather than converted into a favourable assumption.
Also test the recommendation against a simple challenge: could an independent colleague identify the supplier, the evidence and the unresolved risk without reading the original prompt? If not, the matrix is too vague. Ask for a narrower evidence summary, a precise location, or a specific supplier question.
When it does not work
If the output is generic, paste fewer documents and name the exact section to assess. If it mixes suppliers, run one supplier at a time and preserve the supplier name in every document heading. If it recommends a supplier despite material gaps, rerun the decision prompt with the instruction to select continue due diligence unless all Must have items have evidence.
If documents conflict or the decision depends on wording outside operational ownership, record the conflict in the matrix and send the source documents to the appropriate commercial, legal or technical reviewer. Do not use a polished summary as a substitute for that review.
