Requirements / evidence matrix
Requirement, response location, evidence, gap and action.
THE WORK, WITHOUT THE WALL OF TEXT
One review. Four usable files. Clear boundaries.
Gap / fix memo
Page-cited findings prioritized for the revision window.
Input / version log
The exact frozen files reviewed and their receipt times.
Clarification round
One consolidated round, up to 10 questions within 5 business days.
The clarification round explains findings; it is not a review of a revised draft.
INVENTED DEMONSTRATION · NOT A FULL BID REVIEWRequirements / evidence matrix excerpt
Invented demonstration. Not JPW or a client proposal. Not a full bid review. Requirements are drawn from the official NACHC LMS Change Management RFP; all response content below is fictional. Statuses describe supplied content only and are never independent truth certification.
p.6 · Part 1.B(b): name a framework and adapt it to limited staff time.
Names ADKAR; proposes asynchronous briefs plus a weekly 30-minute session.
Met Both requested elements are present in the specimen.
Keep; cite the exact response location in the final matrix.
p.7 · Part 2.A(a): one person with training-development and LMS implementation/use experience.
Names relevant training experience; provides no LMS evidence.
Partial Only one half of the combined requirement is supported.
Add page-cited LMS evidence or change the named person.
p.8 · Part 2.B(b): provide 2–3 work samples.
No work samples are included in the invented response set.
Missing Required attachment evidence is absent.
Select and attach 2–3 relevant samples; cross-reference them.
p.8: timeline milestones and measures.
Phases are present; early-progress, launch and post-launch measures are omitted.
Partial Schedule structure exists without success measures.
Add one measurable checkpoint for each stage.
Solicitation set
One solicitation and supplied addenda, up to 25 pages and 12,500 words.
Response set
One frozen response and attachments, up to 35 pages and 17,500 words.
Budget arithmetic
One budget of up to 50 visible lines, checked for visible arithmetic only.
Both caps apply
Exceeding either page or word cap requires a new written scope.
No whole-bid writing or rewrite.
No legal advice or compliance certification.
No independent validation of credentials.
No submission, signatures or portal actions.
No award, score or deadline guarantee.
No contingent fee and no second-draft review.
THE DECISION
A clear read on what to fix, what to leave alone and whether to submit.
This is a readiness review, not a rewrite. The work concentrates on the issues most likely to affect compliance, evaluator confidence and score.
Compliance
Requirements, instructions, attachments, page limits and obvious submission risks checked against the source document.
Evaluation alignment
Each scored section tested for an explicit answer, usable evidence and a clear connection to the stated criteria.
Decision quality
Findings ranked by impact so the team knows what deserves limited revision time—and what does not.
WHAT IS INCLUDED
One proposal, reviewed against the actual ask.
Solicitation cross-check. Review the RFP/RFQ and amendments supplied with the draft.
Compliance pass. Flag missing, incomplete or ambiguous response requirements.
Evaluator pass. Test the response against disclosed criteria and likely reviewer questions.
Evidence pass. Identify unsupported claims, generic proof and places where the answer needs a concrete example.
Priority pass. Separate submission blockers from high-value improvements and optional polish.
Readout. A concise decision brief plus annotated findings the team can act on.
SAMPLE REVIEW OUTPUT
The review is organized for revision, not admiration.
Illustrative sample only. The example below is invented and does not describe a client, outcome or actual solicitation.
SAMPLE · SECTION 3.2
Implementation approach
WHAT THE EVALUATOR ASKED
Describe the transition plan, named responsibilities and measures used during the first 90 days.
WHAT THE DRAFT DOES
Provides a phased method but does not name owners or define a 90-day measure.
WHY IT MATTERS
The method sounds plausible, but the evaluator cannot verify accountability or early success.
REVISION PRIORITY
High. Add a compact owner / milestone / measure table. Keep the existing narrative.
Requirement→Draft evidence→Page-cited gap→Priority fix
Submission blocker
High-value revision
Optional polish
BOUNDARIES
What this review does not include.
- Writing or rewriting the full proposal
- Legal, procurement or regulatory advice
- Pricing strategy, cost-model validation or certification
- Graphic design, production or portal submission
- Fact verification beyond the materials you provide
- Contact with the issuer, evaluators, partners or references
- Any promise of award, score or evaluator outcome
A GOOD FIT
The draft is substantially complete.
You have the source solicitation, evaluation criteria and a near-final response. The team still has enough time and authority to make targeted changes.
NOT A FIT
You need a proposal built from scratch.
This review is also not the right engagement if required files are missing, the deadline cannot support the confirmed turnaround, or the team wants an award guarantee.
SCOPED INQUIRY
Send the five facts needed to check fit.
No files are needed for the first inquiry. Share the proposal name, deadline, page and word counts, draft status and solicitation type. Work begins only after complete inputs, a named accountable reviewer, verified capacity, and written acceptance of scope, start and delivery date.
- Proposal or opportunity name
- Submission deadline and time zone
- Page and word counts for both input sets
- Draft status: outline, working draft or near-final
- RFP, RFQ, grant, bid or other solicitation type
This opens a pre-addressed email to chris@justsignal.company. Nothing is sent automatically.