Review a proposal into a marked-up document

Why use this

1. A proposal reviewer may need to assess factual claims and consequential wording while also keeping track of edits in a long document. A convincing statistic or familiar clause can pass unnoticed if its evidence or implications are not clearly marked.

2. This job could prepare a marked-up candidate that points reviewers to unsupported figures and terms requiring specialist judgment. Separating factual discrepancies, editorial suggestions and legal questions keeps annotations useful without presenting the agent as final authority.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Trace claims to evidence, identify ambiguous commitments and place review comments where a human can evaluate them in context.

Simpler alternative

Use a standard proposal checklist for a short document with already verified claims.

Unsuitable when

The output would certify legal acceptability, invent statistics or change binding terms without authorized expert review.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Proposal copy

   Owner

   Document owner

   Minimum scope

   Complete draft and version identifier

   Quality check

   Preserve original and distinguish editable text from attachments

2. Name

   Review brief/evidence

   Owner

   Owner or qualified reviewer

   Minimum scope

   Approved priorities and sources for material statistics

   Quality check

   Define issues requiring legal or commercial judgment

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read supplied copies and draft annotations privately; no shared-document edits, external research calls or proposal submission.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current document markup fidelity, source availability and exact runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Editing shared proposals, disclosing confidential content, negotiating terms or sending documents requires authorization.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Annotation plan with claim evidence, proposed comments and questions reserved for qualified reviewers.

Critical checks

1. Keep statistics tied to period/population; distinguish unsupported from false; identify contractual questions without deciding enforceability.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A cited statistic measures a different population

   Why it matters

   The proposal overextends supporting evidence

   Proposed response

   Flag the mismatch and request a suitable source.

2. Signal

   A suggested edit changes a commercial obligation

   Why it matters

   An editorial improvement can alter the deal

   Proposed response

   Mark it for owner/legal review rather than silently rewrite.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define review categories and evidence standards.

Ongoing review

1. Owner and specialists resolve material claims and terms.

Unknowns

1. Source access, jurisdictional implications, markup fidelity and review effort are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent a proposal excerpt with a population-mismatched statistic and ambiguous delivery commitment; draft two anchored comments.

Acceptance checks

1. Explain evidence mismatch; keep legal interpretation provisional; preserve original wording; submit nothing.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if a conclusion needs unavailable evidence or a binding change lacks authorization.

Limits

1. A marked-up proposal cannot establish factual completeness, legal suitability or approval to make contractual commitments.