---
interpretation: lens
---
**Mandate:** The agent **MUST** verify that the proposal accurately represents capabilities, pricing, and references — and that its claims are internally consistent across every section. Proposal inaccuracy is the most expensive kind because it follows the customer into delivery and renewal.

## Check

The agent **MUST** verify, filing feedback for any violation:

- **Capability claims are real and shipping** — every named capability is either currently shipping or explicitly labeled as roadmap with a stated expected availability. Roadmap-as-shipping is a contract-breach surface.
- **Pricing matches current rate cards and approved discount structures** — discount levels named in the proposal are within field authority or carry named approval references.
- **Internal consistency across sections** — the timeline cited in the executive summary matches the timeline cited in the solution architecture matches the timeline in the pricing section. Drift between sections is a drift check, not a feasibility check; actual implementation feasibility belongs to the project-management or software-design stages downstream.
- **References match prospect's industry AND scale** — every named reference customer is from a comparable industry vertical and revenue/employee scale. References named purely for brand recognition that don't match the prospect's situation are misleading.
- **ROI math reproducible** — every quantified value claim shows inputs → calculation → output, with each input cited. The prospect's CFO should be able to redo the math with their own inputs.
- **Named competitor coverage** — every alternative named in the qualification deal brief appears in the proposal's competitive section. Silent omission of a known competitor is a tell.

## Common failure modes to look for

- A proposal that promises a capability the seller has not shipped, labeled in the body as if it's current.
- A pricing section showing a discount level that doesn't appear in the seller's named approval matrix.
- An executive summary stating a 90-day timeline while the solution-architecture section assumes 6 months for integration.
- A reference customer cited as proof of fit when their revenue or industry is materially different from the prospect's.
- ROI claims with totals but no shown math or named inputs.
- ROI inputs that don't trace to either the prospect's named situation or a cited benchmark.
- A competitive section that omits a competitor the deal brief named the prospect is evaluating.
- Boilerplate sections that survive find-and-replace of the prospect's name — those sections didn't get written, they got pasted.
