Skip to content
Workflow-specific products Content, decks, briefs, proposals, legal, and sales each have a clearer buying path.
Review before delivery Draft, edit, collaborate, approve, and export in the same workspace.
Security + procurement path Security policy, support, and Azure Marketplace buying are public.

Permission-safe product proof

Inspect the proposal structure before you start.

Browse six fictional scenarios built from Arc's current proposal kinds. Each example shows the source material a team might bring, the sections a draft could contain, and the checks a human reviewer still owns.

Every organization, scenario, input, and passage on these pages is fictional and illustrative. These are not customer proposals, testimonials, or promised outcomes.

Proposals Arc wrote, and a security questionnaire it answered

Arc wrote the three proposals on 3 October 2026 from a buyer's document, a bidder's evidence file and the deal terms shown, and exported each as a PDF and a Word file without editing. The bidder and the three buyers are invented, and every cover says so. The questionnaire is different: Gixo is the bidder, and every answer in it is one of Gixo's own approved answers, refusals included, copied by Arc from a library built from the answer bank behind our trust page.

The first page of the RFP response Arc wrote: the cover details, the notice that the buyer and bidder are fictional, and the start of the executive summary.
The pricing table of the RFP response: each line is days or units times a standard rate from the bidder's evidence file, with the total.

RFP response · 7-page PDF · 1,693 words

RFP response: resident feedback and service analytics, Marlow Borough Council RFP 2026-14

A response to a council's request for proposals, written for an invented bidder: a cover letter, an executive summary, an answer to each of the ten mandatory and three desirable requirements, the team, two local-authority references, and a price built from the bidder's day rates and unit rates, with every line showing its days or units.

The brief and the inputs Arc was given

Respond to Marlow Borough Council's request for proposals RFP 2026-14 on behalf of Larkfield Analytics Ltd. Answer each mandatory requirement R1 to R10 and each desirable requirement D1 to D3 in turn, using the supplied evidence file for the company, delivery team, past performance, rates, assurance and declarations. Then add a short section that shows where the response answers each evaluation criterion (method, delivery team, past performance, data protection and security) and price. Build every price line from the standard rates in the evidence file (the days of each role times the day rate, or the units times the unit rate) and show the days or units behind each line. Add nothing the evidence file does not state, and do not refer to appendices or attachments that the response does not contain. Put a notice on the cover page that the buyer and the bidder are fictional and the response is a worked example. Inputs: the buyer's document (rfp-marlow-council.md); the bidder's evidence file (larkfield-evidence.md); commercial terms: value 296,000 to 318,000 GBP, valid for 60 days, payment terms 'Invoiced monthly in arrears, payable within 30 days.'; deal context: The buyer and the bidder in this response are fictional, and this response is a worked example. The response is for a 24-month contract with an option to extend for 12 months, within the buyer's budget ceiling of 330,000 pounds excluding VAT.

PDF (227 KB)Word (12 KB)

A separate reviewer agent read its 150 claims against the bidder's evidence file, the council's RFP and the deal terms: 132 are supported, 16 go a little beyond an input, 2 are in no input (it calls the price fixed, and it cites a 1,950-word limit nobody set) and none contradicts one. Every price line recomputes. It is not a person's review.

The first page of the consulting proposal Arc wrote: the cover details, the notice that the buyer and bidder are fictional, and the start of the executive summary.
The pricing table of the consulting proposal: each line is days or units times a standard rate from the bidder's evidence file, with the total.

Consulting proposal · 12-page PDF · 2,740 words

Consulting proposal: repairs satisfaction measurement, Harbourside Housing Association

A ten-week advisory engagement for an invented housing association: situation, approach and phases, a requirement-by-requirement compliance matrix, deliverables, timeline, team, terms, and a fee built phase by phase from the bidder's day rates, with the days of each role shown.

The brief and the inputs Arc was given

Propose a ten-week advisory engagement for Harbourside Housing Association, on behalf of Larkfield Analytics Ltd, that answers the association's brief: review the current repairs survey, recommend how to measure repairs satisfaction by contractor, and leave a reporting approach for the repairs team and the board. Build the fee for each phase from the standard rates in the evidence file (the days of each role times the day rate) and show those days. Add nothing the evidence file does not state. Put a notice on the cover page that the buyer and the bidder are fictional and the proposal is a worked example. Inputs: the buyer's document (brief-harbourside-housing.md); the bidder's evidence file (larkfield-evidence.md); commercial terms: value 46,000 to 52,000 GBP, valid for 60 days, payment terms 'Invoiced monthly in arrears, payable within 30 days.'; deal context: The buyer and the bidder in this proposal are fictional, and this proposal is a worked example. The engagement lead presents to the buyer's board in the ninth week.

PDF (309 KB)Word (15 KB)

A separate reviewer agent read its 177 claims against the bidder's evidence file, the buyer's brief and the deal terms: 115 are supported, 58 add design detail or an inference, 4 are in no input (it calls the fee fixed) and none contradicts one. Every price line recomputes. It is not a person's review.

The first page of the sales proposal Arc wrote: the cover details, the notice that the buyer and bidder are fictional, and the start of the executive summary.
The pricing table of the sales proposal: each line is days or units times a standard rate from the bidder's evidence file, with the total.

Sales proposal · 12-page PDF · 2,932 words

Sales proposal: weekly shop dashboards, Fenwick & Dale Stores

A proposal for an invented regional retailer: the buyer's own untested estimate of what stock-outs cost it (described as untested), what the supplier will deliver and own, the data connections and implementation approach, the launch timeline, a first-year price built from the bidder's rates, two case studies and the team.

The brief and the inputs Arc was given

Propose weekly shop dashboards and a head-office comparison view to Fenwick & Dale Stores on behalf of Larkfield Analytics Ltd, with the supplier owning the data connections to the till, stock and loyalty systems. In any requirements table list only what the buyer's brief asks for; Larkfield's own standards belong in the method. Build every price line from the standard rates in the evidence file and show the days or months behind it. Add nothing the evidence file does not state. Put a notice on the cover page that the buyer and the bidder are fictional and the proposal is a worked example. Inputs: the buyer's document (brief-fenwick-dale.md); the bidder's evidence file (larkfield-evidence.md); commercial terms: value 52,000 to 60,000 GBP, valid for 60 days, payment terms 'Invoiced monthly in arrears, payable within 30 days.'; deal context: The buyer and the bidder in this proposal are fictional, and this proposal is a worked example. The buyer's out-of-stock cost of 5 to 7 percent of weekly sales in its three busiest shops is the buyer's own untested estimate and must be described as such. The first dashboards must be in shop managers' hands within 14 weeks.

PDF (286 KB)Word (15 KB)

A separate reviewer agent read its 178 claims against the bidder's evidence file, the buyer's brief and the deal terms: 142 are supported, 36 add detail or an inference, none is absent from every input and none contradicts one. Every price line recomputes. It is not a person's review.

A slide of the response pack: a question from the buyer's workbook and the approved answer Arc copied from Gixo's library, with its review status.
The first slide of the response pack: the questionnaire's title, the number of responses and the readiness figure Arc computed.

Security questionnaire · 32 answers copied from the library · of 35 questions Arc found · 41-slide response pack

Response to a buyer security questionnaire, answered by Gixo

A buyer's 36-question security questionnaire (a workbook written for this example, with conventional wording and no named buyer), answered for Gixo. Arc matched each question to an answer in a library built from Gixo's own answer bank, copied the approved answer into the buyer's own workbook cell, and exported the compliance matrix and a response pack.

The brief and the inputs Arc was given

Answer the buyer's security questionnaire for Gixo. Answer each question using only the approved library answers supplied; where the library has no answer for a question, say Gixo has no documented position yet.

Buyer's workbook, filled in (13 KB)Compliance matrix (CSV) (21 KB)Response pack (PowerPoint) (66 KB)

Each of the 32 filled answers was compared with the library and is word for word an approved Gixo answer, refusals included (no SOC 2 report, no ISO 27001, no customer-managed keys). Arc found no answer above its threshold for three questions and did not pick up a fourth; those cells are blank for a person.

Each proposal was read against its inputs by a separate reviewer agent, not by a person; the counts are on each card. Replace every invented name, price and commitment with approved material from the real opportunity before anything is sent.

Inspect the questionnaire before and after review

Trace three questions through reusable answers, reviewer decisions and the returned buyer workbook. Compare the original questions, response cells and formulas.

Inspect the example and files →

Fictional, hand-authored demonstration inputs. The files were created by the actual product export services; this does not establish AI output quality or customer outcomes.

6fictional example scenarios
6proposal kinds represented
Humanreview remains the release gate

Evaluation checklist

Judge the draft by what a reviewer can verify.

A persuasive layout is useful only when the team can challenge the underlying inputs and decisions.

Source fit

Does the draft reflect the supplied opportunity?

Check that buyer requirements, discovery notes, approved proof, scope, and commercial assumptions are represented without generic filler.

Decision fit

Can the reader see the decision being requested?

Look for a clear problem, proposed path, evidence, tradeoffs, ownership, and next step appropriate to the proposal kind.

Release fit

Are unresolved commitments still visible?

Pricing, compliance, legal terms, technical dependencies, claims, and final approval should remain explicit review gates.

Continue evaluating Arc

Match the example to a supported proposal type and workflow.

Explore the proposal-type catalog for structure, the use-case hub for team context, or the documentation path for grounding and review guidance.

Your material, your review, your decision

Move from source files to a proposal draft your team can inspect.

Arc prepares a structured first draft from the material you provide. Your reviewers still own the facts, scope, pricing, commitments, and final approval.

Updated