proposal-critique

name	proposal-critique
description	Analyze a completed proposal from the perspective of an implacable buyer/negotiator. Produces a diagnostic with weighted scorecard, bottleneck checklist, improvement playbook, concrete rewrites, and offer-to-proposal fidelity check. LOW interactivity — diagnostic output, user reads and decides. Use after template-formatting is complete.

Goal

Evaluate a completed business proposal from the buyer's perspective — not as a friendly reviewer, but as an implacable procurement negotiator looking for leverage, weaknesses, and reasons to demand concessions. Produce a comprehensive diagnostic that identifies what works, what fails, and exactly how to fix it.

Inputs

• Context Document: deals/[NombreDeal]/00-context/context-document.md
• Offer Design: deals/[NombreDeal]/02-offer/offer-design.md
• Proposal: deals/[NombreDeal]/03-proposal/proposal.md
• Scorecard reference: shared/references/critique-scorecard.md
• Bottleneck checklist: shared/references/bottleneck-checklist.md
• Template: shared/templates/04-proposal-critique.md

Output

• deals/[NombreDeal]/04-evaluation/proposal-critique.md

Core Principles

1. Buyer's perspective, not seller's. Adopt the mindset of "un negociador de contratacion y compras implacable." Look for: leverage extraction points, pricing weaknesses, desperation signals, ambiguity that can be exploited, missing proof, weak guarantees. This is not surface copy critique — it is deep negotiation analysis.

2. Evidence-based scoring. Every score in the scorecard must cite specific evidence from the proposal document. No vague justifications like "could be stronger" — point to the exact section, sentence, or absence that justifies the score.

3. Fixes are concrete. The Improvement Playbook does not say "improve the guarantee." It says "In Section 8.1, replace the current guarantee text with a specific stress-test mechanism that tests [X] before go-live, with binary pass/fail criteria and full refund if fail." Rewrites provide actual replacement text.

4. Fidelity matters. Check whether the proposal faithfully translates the offer. Missing elements, weakened language, or inconsistencies between offer and proposal are critical findings.

Procedure

Phase 1 — Absorption

1. Read deals/[NombreDeal]/03-proposal/proposal.md in full.
2. Read deals/[NombreDeal]/02-offer/offer-design.md in full.
3. Read deals/[NombreDeal]/00-context/context-document.md in full.
4. Read scorecard reference: shared/references/critique-scorecard.md.
5. Read bottleneck checklist: shared/references/bottleneck-checklist.md.
6. Read template: shared/templates/04-proposal-critique.md.

Phase 2 — Section A: Exec Summary

7. Identify the 3 biggest strengths with evidence.
8. Identify the 3 biggest weaknesses with negotiation impact.
9. Identify the 3 highest-leverage fixes (changes that would most improve conversion).

Phase 3 — Section B: Scorecard

10. Score each of the 10 criteria (1-10 scale):

    Value Equation (60% weight):

    • Dream Outcome claro y especifico (12%)
    • Perceived Likelihood: mecanismo + plan + control (18%)
    • Time Delay reducido: time-to-value (12%)
    • Effort & Sacrifice reducido: friccion (10%)
    • Value Stack / percepcion de deal (8%)

    Proposal That Converts (40% weight):

    • Deliverables especificos + criterios de aceptacion (10%)
    • Scope y limites (8%)
    • Proof / credibilidad (8%)
    • Risk reversal / safeguards (8%)
    • Buying friction: pricing + next steps (6%)

11. For each criterion: score with specific evidence from the document.

12. Calculate weighted total using the formula from critique-scorecard.md.

13. List all fragilities (criteria scoring below 6).

Phase 4 — Section C: Bottleneck Checklist

14. Run the 9 binary checks from bottleneck-checklist.md:

    1. One-liner A to B in Z without X
    2. Why believe? (mechanism + steps + success criteria)
    3. Time-to-value (quick win 7-14 days)
    4. "What do I have to do?" (client inputs + DFY clarity)
    5. Auditable deliverables ("done when...")
    6. Scope + not included + change process
    7. Proof (1-3 hard assets)
    8. Risk reversal (conditional guarantee/test/remedy)
    9. Pricing + decision + next steps

15. For each: PASS, PARTIAL, or FAIL with specific evidence.

16. Count totals. Interpret: 7+ PASS = ready; 4-6 = needs fixes; <4 = significant revision.

Phase 5 — Section D: Improvement Playbook

17. Identify top 10-12 fixes ordered by leverage (highest impact first).
18. For each fix:
    • Diagnosis: What is wrong (specific)
    • Impact: Why it weakens the proposal (negotiation/conversion perspective)
    • Concrete change: Exactly what to do
    • Where: Which section of the proposal

Phase 6 — Section E: Rewrites

19. For the 3-5 weakest sections, produce concrete rewrite blocks.
20. Each rewrite is actual replacement text the user can copy-paste.
21. Provide 2-3 variants for the most critical rewrite.

Phase 7 — Section F: Translation Check

22. Compare Offer Design to Proposal systematically:
    • Items successfully translated (3-5 elements)
    • Items missing or weakly translated (3-5 elements)
    • Inconsistencies between offer and proposal (data, metrics, claims that don't match)

Phase 8 — Completion

23. Write summary: weighted score, 2-3 sentence executive assessment, estimated impact of applying fixes.
24. Assemble full document using template structure.
25. Save to deals/[NombreDeal]/04-evaluation/proposal-critique.md.
26. Present key findings to user: "Proposal scored [X]/10. [Y] bottleneck checks passed. Top 3 fixes: [list]. Full diagnostic saved."

Anti-patterns

• Friendly, surface-level critique. This is a buyer's negotiation analysis, not a peer review. Be ruthless.
• Scores without evidence. "7/10 — solid" is useless. Cite the exact section and quote.
• Generic fix recommendations. "Improve the guarantee" is not actionable. Specify the exact change.
• Skipping the translation check. Offer-to-proposal fidelity is where silent value loss happens.
• Producing the critique without reading all three source documents. Context informs what the client actually said; offer informs what was promised; proposal is what's being delivered.
• Rewrites that change the strategic direction. Rewrites improve the proposal's execution, not the offer's strategy. If the strategy is wrong, that's feedback for offer-design.