Use case

Build this RFP review workflow.Review public RFP packages with citations beside the work.

See the source-backed workflow, example output, checks, and human-review notes.Review public RFP packages with cited answers, source excerpts, review flags, and proposal handoff work.

Who this helps

Source-backed review keeps the answer, source reference, and human review cue close together.

What problem this use case solves

Generic summaries and disconnected notes are hard to trust when reviewers cannot quickly inspect the source.

How SourceFlag helps

Supports grounded Ask over uploaded public materials.
Shows citation and source context near answers.
Creates reviewable artifacts for matrix, deadline, flag, and export handoff.
Keeps AI output framed as assistance that must be verified.

When to use this workflow

Use when answers, citations, excerpts, review notes, and handoff artifacts need to stay connected.
Use when generic summaries are not enough because reviewers need to inspect the governing source.
Use when a public package needs first-pass Ask, matrix, deadline, flag, and export work in one review workspace.

Copyable table

Synthetic source-backed review examples

Example answers and outputs tied to public solicitation sources.

Synthetic source-backed review examples: Example answers and outputs tied to public solicitation sources.
Question or task	Source	Answer/context	Output	Verification note
Is a Past Performance Volume required?	Section L, p. 18	Yes, up to three references appear requested.	Compliance row	Confirm recency and relevance in Section M.
When are questions due?	Section L, p. 5	May 29, 2026 at noon ET.	Deadline row	Verify portal method and amendments.
Is there a submission conflict?	Cover page; Section L, p. 10	Email and portal instructions differ.	Review flag	Proposal manager decides next action.

TSV copy block

Question or task	Source	Answer/context	Output	Verification note
Is a Past Performance Volume required?	Section L, p. 18	Yes, up to three references appear requested.	Compliance row	Confirm recency and relevance in Section M.
When are questions due?	Section L, p. 5	May 29, 2026 at noon ET.	Deadline row	Verify portal method and amendments.
Is there a submission conflict?	Cover page; Section L, p. 10	Email and portal instructions differ.	Review flag	Proposal manager decides next action.

What to verify before relying on output

Inspect every cited passage and confirm the answer matches the source context.
Check amendments, attachments, Q&A responses, forms, and workbook instructions before relying on an answer.
Record what remains uncertain, owner-driven, or needs proposal-manager review.
Keep restricted, controlled, non-public, private capture, pricing strategy, regulated personal, or sensitive teaming/customer material out of the workspace.

Grounded Ask answer

Yes. A Past Performance Volume is required with no more than three references.

Review item

Yes. A Past Performance Volume is required with no more than three references.

Source

Section L, p. 45

Status

Needs verification

Human review note

Review note: confirm recency rules and whether references must match the scope.

Buyer notes

Good for teams that need traceable first-pass work.
Not for restricted or non-public content.

Product proof

Inspect SourceFlag before choosing a plan.

Source the facts. Flag the risks. Review the product workflow and synthetic sample output before bringing a public solicitation package into a workspace.

See Product See Sample Output

Start from a clearer source-backed workspace.

U.S.-based business customers only. Public and unclassified solicitation materials only. Human review required.

Start a Workspace Compare Pricing