Source systems
Your approved evidence stays where it belongs
Account history, document libraries and delivery records stay with their owners. The workflow points back to them.
Company Brain workflows
Client Delivery Brain / Founding workflow / 02
Build proposal evidence without starting from a blank page.
A cited evidence pack for live proposals and RFPs. It helps a delivery team recover the relevant account context, approved material and open gaps before drafting.
What you buy
A 30-day implementation for one live workflow.
You are not buying a generic knowledge base, a software licence or open-ended advisory time. You are buying the configuration, evidence discipline and weekly operating loop for this defined work.
You receive
A workflow contract
One live workstream, an output format, evidence rules, a review cadence and an explicit stop or continuation decision.
A source and permission map
The approved source categories, their owners, intended use and exclusions for the specific workflow.
Four reviewable output cycles
A first artefact within seven days after complete setup, then three further weekly cycles that leave source links, uncertainty and an accountable next check.
You bring
One live workstream
An active account, pursuit or handover with enough work in the next 30 days to show whether the workflow helps.
A source authoriser and verifier
Someone who can approve the limited source boundary and someone who will review the weekly artefact against the live work.
A simple baseline
The current cost of reconstructing context, missed commitments, decision delay or rework so day-30 value is judged against a real starting point.
Day-30 value check
At day 30, the proposal owner should be able to show that the team recovered evidence faster, exposed a missing fact earlier, or reduced rework across live pursuits.
We also check that the first output arrived after a complete setup, that the weekly output was reviewed and used, and that it has not created custom delivery work outside this workflow.
The operating problem
Start with work that already has a cost.
Strong proposals are delayed when the evidence lives across account history, prior work, delivery knowledge and scattered documents. People rewrite old answers or guess at current facts.
The workflow stack
The technology serves the workflow.
The first implementation uses the smallest approved source set. It is not a promise of a new platform, every connector, or blanket access to company data.
Context configuration
Rules for evidence, gaps and reuse
We define what may support a proposal, what needs a source, what must be marked uncertain and who owns a missing answer.
Human verifier
A proposal owner accepts the evidence pack
The owner checks relevance and source rights before the material is used. The workflow does not publish or submit a proposal.
Weekly artefact
A cited evidence pack
Each pack separates sourced material, open questions and owner checks so drafting starts from a safer base.
Approved source categories
Source 01
Account and CRM history
The buyer context, prior conversations and account facts that are safe to use in the proposal process.
Source 02
Approved proposal and document library
Prior proposals, approved boilerplate, references and product or service material with a clear owner.
Source 03
Delivery or project evidence
Relevant examples, scope facts and constraints from existing work. The team decides what is safe to include.
How it starts
A bounded implementation, not an open-ended consulting project.
The page describes the workflow before any source is connected. We configure only the agreed scope, then decide from observed use instead of extending the work because it sounds interesting.
01
Choose the live work
Name one account or workstream, the recurring failure it creates and the outcome you will compare at day 30.
02
Configure the boundary
Agree the small read-only source set, exclusions, evidence rules and the person who can verify the result.
03
Use the weekly artefact
Receive the first output within seven days of a complete setup, then review four weekly cycles against live work.
04
Decide from evidence
At day 30, review use, reviewer time and at least one prevented miss, faster decision or reduced context-recovery time. Continue only if the work proved its value.
Technical setup
Technical detail, without a pretend platform.
You do not need to choose a new software stack to apply. The implementation starts by making the existing systems, permissions and human controls explicit for this workflow.
Source ownership stays put
The agreed CRM, delivery and document systems remain authoritative. This is not a migration or a replacement database.
Context is configured by policy
The setup defines allowed source use, evidence and uncertainty rules, a named audience, and the human review boundary before work begins.
Data handling is agreed before access
The project contract records the permitted processing and retention boundary for the client scope. This site never asks for credentials or private client records.
No autonomous external action
The starting workflow is read-only and produces reviewable outputs. People retain authority to message, commit, edit or approve consequential work.
The artefact
Proposal or RFP evidence pack
Run the workflow against at least three live pursuits in the 30-day period. Each accepted pack gives the next drafter a traceable starting point.
Relevant approved evidence
Source and freshness note
Open gap
Verifier or owner check
Drafting next step
Scope boundary
Small enough to prove. Clear enough to trust.
- At least three expected live pursuits in 30 days.
- Up to three approved read-only source types.
- The team controls what is safe to reuse.
- No automatic submission, commercial promise, or client message.
Questions
Proposal/RFP Evidence Desk, in practice.
Does this write the final proposal?
No. It gives the proposal owner a cited evidence pack and makes gaps visible. The team remains responsible for the final narrative and commercial commitment.
Can we add every past proposal?
No. The first workflow uses only the small, approved source set needed for live pursuits. More material does not make the evidence safer.
What does success look like?
The team can show that the pack reduced context recovery or prevented a missed fact, while the reviewer can verify the material in a short weekly review.
One bounded workflow
Describe the live work this should support.
Start with the account or workstream, the recurring failure, and the person who can verify the weekly output. Keep client credentials and private records out of the form.