Proposal draft (outline → narrative)
Combines scope bullets, pricing guardrails, and win themes into a structured first draft.
Overview
Proposals stall in the gap between "we know what we sell" and a coherent narrative. This pattern forces explicit scope boundaries, surfaces assumptions, and produces a scaffold legal and finance can react to—instead of prose nobody owns.
Who should use it
Principals, practice leads, and sellers who reuse firm boilerplate but still customize every deal shape, timeline, and commercial posture.
Use it for
Statements of work where phased delivery, acceptance, and change control must be legible.
MSA follow-on SOWs where pricing posture and risk split differ from the master agreement.
Paid discovery or pilot offers that need crisp deliverables without over-signaling full implementation.
Inputs
Client name, industry, and situation summary—enough that a stranger grasps why now.
Scope bullets with explicit in/out; mark what is fixed bid vs time-and-materials.
Commercial posture: ranges are fine; tag what needs legal or finance sign-off before you quote.
Differentiators and proof points your leadership allows you to cite on paper.
Context
State that this is a non-binding draft pending human review. Instruct the model to mark pricing, legal, and delivery commitments with clear TBD or [ASSUMPTION] rather than smoothing uncertainty into confident prose.
Prompt Skeleton
Draft a proposal narrative from bullets. Buyer context: - Name/industry: ... - Problem hypothesis: ... - Urgency / timing: ... Scope: - In scope: ... - Out of scope: ... - Deliverables: ... Commercial posture (non-binding draft): - ... Differentiators & proof points we can cite: ... Output format: 1) Cover letter (1 page, calm tone) 2) Executive summary 3) Approach (phases, milestones) 4) Deliverables & acceptance criteria 5) Timeline sketch 6) Commercials section (clear TBDs) 7) Assumptions & dependencies 8) Next steps Mark assumptions with [ASSUMPTION].
Review checklist
Legal and finance reviewed any numbers, liability language, or term references.
Out-of-scope and acceptance criteria explicitly fence risky add-ons.
Proof points match case studies and metrics you are permitted to disclose.
Common mistakes
Letting marketing superlatives slip in that a partner would not defend in negotiation.
Burying open risks in dense paragraphs where approvers miss them.
Forgetting that Canvas edits still need the same review pass as net-new text.
