A vendor decision with the evidence attached.

Choose comparable criteria

Copy the prompt into a Session and add the proposal files to its Project. Replace the sample criteria with the requirements your decision maker actually uses. Mark requirements that are mandatory instead of silently weighting them all equally.

The fictional sample demonstrates the expected treatment of a missing term. It is not evidence about a real company or a recommendation for an actual purchase.

Review the table before the conclusion

Check source locations and make sure both options were judged against the same requirements. If a proposal uses a range or an assumption, keep that qualification in the table.

Ask the Agent to explain what could reverse its recommendation. Save the brief with the proposal versions used, then update the comparison when new terms arrive. A generated comparison supports your review; it does not authorize outreach or a purchasing decision.

Try it with a small example.

An illustrative result.

Fictional sample, written to show the expected structure. Your result depends on your inputs and needs review.

Fictional sample decision
Cedar: meets the stated rollout and support requirements.
Harbor: faster stated rollout; support coverage is not stated.
Provisional fit: Cedar, subject to checking the full proposal.
Next question: Ask for Harbor’s support terms before treating it as equivalent.

Before you use the result.

• Every claim points to a supplied source.
• Missing terms are visible instead of scored as zero.
• The recommendation names its assumptions.
• No vendor contact or purchase was initiated.