# Quoting Supplier Proposal Equaliser — build plan

**Access:** free downloadable source starter; self-build, self-deploy and self-maintain.

**Current package:** prompt, minimal TypeScript API-call example, README and this build plan. It is not a complete application.

## Outcome

Put competing quoting-automation proposals on the same page, with scope, ownership and disclosed costs kept together.

**Users:** Owner-presidents, finance leaders and commercial directors procuring quoting automation.

**Replaces:** Manually comparing differently structured supplier proposals and repeatedly chasing hidden scope or ownership assumptions.

## Inputs
- Authorised supplier proposals and commercial schedules
- Contractor requirements and current licensed-module inventory
- Supplied usage assumptions and internal implementation responsibilities
- Support, data retention, export, code-access and exit terms where available

## Outputs
- Source-linked scope, responsibility and ownership comparison
- Three-year disclosed-cost worksheet with unpriced obligations
- Supplier-specific clarification pack
- Decision brief showing evidence gaps

## MVP screens and workflow
1. **Requirements + inventory:** Define the same bounded quoting workflow for every proposal. Record existing licensed modules and responsibilities already covered internally.
2. **Evidence matrix:** Compare evidenced capability, supplier claim, exclusion and unknown separately. Link every populated term to a proposal page or schedule.
3. **Disclosed-cost worksheet:** Calculate the supplied three-year cost terms by currency. Show one-off costs, recurring charges, usage assumptions and unpriced obligations together.
4. **Clarifications + decision brief:** Generate questions for each supplier from the actual gaps. Export the matrix, calculation basis and unresolved items without ranking suppliers.

## Proposed records
- Requirement: identifier, workflow boundary, required outcome
- Proposal: supplier label, version, source reference, currency
- Term: capability/claim/exclusion/unknown, responsibility, evidence reference
- Cost item: basis, amount, currency, frequency, term, disclosed assumption
- Clarification: supplier, missing term, linked requirement, reviewer status

## Rules and review controls
- An undisclosed cost is unknown, never zero. Keep incomplete totals labelled as disclosed subtotals.
- Keep currencies separate. Conversion requires a supplied, dated exchange rate and an explicit conversion record.
- For complete terms, three-year disclosed cost = one-off charges + stated recurring charges over 36 months + supplied usage charges. Apply disclosed start dates, escalation and billing periods explicitly.
- Do not double count licensed modules that the contractor already has; show applicability for review.
- Keep support, data retention, export, code access and exit terms visible beside cost.
- Preserve competing evidence versions. Do not turn an unverified supplier claim into an evidenced capability.

## Integrations

Proposal and requirements upload; licensed-module inventory spreadsheet; deterministic calculation module; comparison-report export.

## Build sequence
1. **Define the comparison:** Agree a common requirement matrix, cost categories and evidence labels.
2. **Build extraction + review:** Upload proposal text and schedules; extract terms with source pointers and provide editable reviewer decisions.
3. **Add cost worksheets:** Implement deterministic schedules, currency separation and unpriced-obligation tracking.
4. **Release the starter:** Export comparison and clarification packs. Verify against hand-calculated fixtures and package self-hosting instructions.

## Acceptance checks
- [ ] An absent implementation fee remains unknown and prevents a complete-total label.
- [ ] Different currencies are never added without an approved conversion basis.
- [ ] Monthly, annual and one-off fees calculate over the disclosed period without duplication.
- [ ] An existing licensed module is flagged for applicability review.
- [ ] An unsupported capability is labelled as a supplier claim.
- [ ] The decision brief shows evidence gaps and contains no invented winner or score.

## Shared implementation foundation

These are proposed build plans, not claims that the downloadable examples implement the finished tools.

- Start with authorised, bounded uploads and CSV/JSON imports. Add read-only connectors only after the upload workflow passes review.
- Store source references (file, page or message locator, version and extracted excerpt) beside every derived field. Record unavailable evidence explicitly.
- Separate model extraction and suggested matches from deterministic calculations and reviewer decisions. Treat uploaded document text as data, never as system instructions.
- Keep provider keys on the server. Validate inputs, output schema, file types and size limits. Handle provider failures without treating an empty result as success.
- Design project-level access, retention/deletion and an audit trail before handling live contractor records. The starter example does not implement these controls.
- Package setup steps, environment-variable descriptions, a synthetic fixture set, regression checks and a deployment/runbook. The operator supplies hosting, model/API usage, monitoring, backups and maintenance.
- Do not claim measured savings, accuracy, production readiness or a research-backed score. The attached material does not establish them.

## Release sequence

1. Agree schema, workflow boundary and contractor-approved rules.
2. Build upload, evidence review and deterministic calculations.
3. Add export and exception-handling paths.
4. Run the acceptance cases with authorised synthetic or redacted fixtures.
5. Document deployment and operational ownership before live use.