Choose the review workflow that fits the opportunity.
Upload alone starts no AI or Human Review. Choose unverified outputs, or request review with an official identifier or URL or an offered exact manual snapshot.Proposal managers can create the project first, then decide whether shared AI usage or a SourceFlag Team-reviewed publication fits the pursuit.
Compliance matrix creation
Open use caseEither an AI-generated working matrix or a SourceFlag Team-reviewed compliance workbook with source references and open gaps.
Buyer pain
Teams still build rows by hand from Section L, attachments, forms, and amendment text.
Workflow step
Create a project and upload authorized public or unclassified files; upload alone starts no AI. Generate an unverified AI matrix when speed matters, or request Human Review with an official identifier or URL or, when offered, an exact manual-review snapshot.
Output
Either an AI-generated working matrix or a SourceFlag Team-reviewed compliance workbook with source references and open gaps.
Mini artifact preview
Requirement: Include Past Performance Volume with no more than three references. Source: Section L, p. 45. Owner: Capture Lead / Open.
Bid/no-bid review
Open use caseA clearer list of dates, risks, must-have requirements, and open questions for leadership.
Buyer pain
Early reviews stall while capture teams look for deadlines, evaluation factors, and hidden obligations.
Workflow step
Ask grounded questions over the package and inspect cited source context before the review meeting.
Output
A clearer list of dates, risks, must-have requirements, and open questions for leadership.
Mini artifact preview
Risk/date summary: Questions due May 29, proposal due June 14, past performance required, pricing workbook attachment needs validation.
Risk review
Open use caseA needs-review memo with source-backed notes and human decision points.
Buyer pain
Ambiguous scope, missing attachments, unclear pricing rules, and conflicting instructions can hide in the package.
Workflow step
Surface flagged items and route them to the proposal manager, pricing owner, or capture lead.
Output
A needs-review memo with source-backed notes and human decision points.
Mini artifact preview
Needs Review: Submission method conflict. Source: Cover page + Section L. Human action: Confirm final submission method.
Proposal kickoff prep
Open use caseAn editable working workspace informed by the reviewed brief, workbook, and governed workspace; later work does not inherit Human Verified status.
Buyer pain
Kickoff meetings lose time when the team starts from scattered files and partial notes.
Workflow step
Prepare the project workspace, source questions, checklist rows, owners, and drafting context before kickoff.
Output
An editable working workspace informed by the reviewed brief, workbook, and governed workspace; later work does not inherit Human Verified status.
Mini artifact preview
Owner/status row: Provide transition plan for first 30 days. Technical Lead / Open. Source: Section C, p. 9.
Deadline and submission tracking
Open use caseA deadline and submission checklist the team can review before final proposal production.
Buyer pain
Due dates, question deadlines, amendment acknowledgements, and file instructions are easy to miss.
Workflow step
Extract dates and submission instructions, then verify each one against the cited source material.
Output
A deadline and submission checklist the team can review before final proposal production.
Mini artifact preview
Deadline row: Questions due May 29, 2026 at 12:00 PM ET. Source: Section L, p. 5. Owner: Capture Lead / Open.
Clarifying question generation
Open use caseA list of practical clarification questions for human review before submission.
Buyer pain
Teams need to turn review findings into focused questions before the Q&A deadline closes.
Workflow step
Use grounded findings and flagged items to draft questions tied to source language.
Output
A list of practical clarification questions for human review before submission.
Mini artifact preview
Draft question: Please confirm whether final submission must be through the portal or by email, because the cover page and Section L differ.
Source-backed RFP review
Open use caseA SourceFlag Team-reviewed RFP brief, compliance workbook, and governed workspace, plus a separate editable working layer.
Buyer pain
Generic summaries are hard to trust when the answer is separated from the source excerpt.
Workflow step
Ask grounded questions, inspect citations, create review rows, and verify before relying on the output.
Output
A SourceFlag Team-reviewed RFP brief, compliance workbook, and governed workspace, plus a separate editable working layer.
Mini artifact preview
Grounded Ask: past performance is required. Citation: Section L, p. 45. Review cue: confirm recency rules.
Public solicitation review
Open use caseA public-package review surface for requirements, deadlines, flags, questions, and kickoff notes.
Buyer pain
Teams need a fast review workflow with a clear boundary. Ordinary business-confidential proposal material may be stored and manually organized only in a private_storage_only project. AI features, Human Review, and background processing are locked off for that project.
Workflow step
Use authorized public or unclassified material, then choose AI working outputs or request Human Review. SourceFlag staff accepts the named official source before the review target starts.
Output
A public-package review surface for requirements, deadlines, flags, questions, and kickoff notes.
Mini artifact preview
Accepted source list: RFP.pdf, Section-L.docx, Pricing-J.2.xlsx, Amendment-0001.pdf. Boundary: eligible public or unclassified solicitation material only.
Start with the workflow your team needs most.
Review six named public-opportunity summaries, follow each controlling official source, and then choose the plan that matches your team and review needs.