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.

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.

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.

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.

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.