「auth」の検索結果

Reads two or more supplier, bid or tender responses against a requirements list and returns a DRAFT comparison pack: a requirement-by-supplier matrix, gaps per supplier, clarification questions and neutral observations, for an evaluation panel. Never scores, weights, ranks or recommends a winner; the award stays with the panel. Use when the user asks to "compare these bids", "matrix the tender responses against our requirements", "collate the RFQ replies", "show me where each supplier falls short" or "draft clarification questions for the bidders". Do not use for scoring or weighting against agreed criteria, use supplier-evaluation-matrix instead, or for writing the requirements, use rfp-requirements-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns a business need and its constraints into a DRAFT RFP requirements pack: traced functional and non-functional requirements with priorities, mandatory gates, evaluation criteria with weights left to the business owner, and fact-seeking supplier questions. Solution-neutral; never names a supplier or product. Use when the user asks to "write the RFP requirements", "turn this business case into tender requirements", "draft the supplier questionnaire", "structure our RFQ from this brief" or "set up evaluation criteria before we go to market". Do not use for responses already received, use rfp-comparison-pack to compare them or supplier-evaluation-matrix to score them instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a DRAFT weighted supplier evaluation matrix from supplier responses and the panel's agreed criteria, weights and scale: a provisional score per cell with the quoted evidence and anchor behind it, a register of every missing or partial answer, and calibration and sensitivity flags. Provisional for panel moderation; never recommends, awards or disqualifies. Use when the user asks to score, weight or rank supplier, bid or tender responses against agreed criteria, for example "score these bids", "build the evaluation matrix", "weight the tender responses" or "rank the suppliers against our criteria". Do not use for a side-by-side comparison without scores, use rfp-comparison-pack instead; for writing the criteria, use rfp-requirements-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Checks a master document register extract for gaps and returns a DRAFT question list for document control: missing or out-of-sequence revisions, overdue or slipping deliverables, numbering that breaks the project convention, duplicates and incomplete rows, each with row, test and quoted evidence. Never edits the register, re-baselines a date or marks a deliverable complete. Use when the user asks to "check the MDR", "find the gaps in the deliverables list" or "prepare questions on the drawing register". Do not use for drafting a transmittal from a document list, use transmittal-drafter instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Operating Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific sections, delivery and operational risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a COO review", "pressure-test the delivery plan", "what would our COO say about this", "check the timeline and capacity" or "find the execution gaps before the steering committee". Do not use for financial questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Flags where a P&ID draft raises a process safety question and points to the candidate evidence an engineer would review (HAZOP register, relief study, SIL assessment, isolation philosophy), as questions and quoted passages with UNKNOWN for missing documents, plus safety functions, relief devices and isolation requirements carried over as stated. Never rates, sizes, classifies, resolves or declares protection adequate. Use when the user asks to "write the process safety flags", "produce the process safety section of the P&ID enrichment", "list which protection questions this P&ID raises" or "map the HAZOP and relief study evidence to the draft" after gate G2, once the piping and instrumentation sections exist. Do not use for proposing loops, alarms or trips from the control philosophy, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use for checking identifiers, use tagging-and-numbering. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Proposes the instrumentation and control content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: instruments drawn carried over as facts, measurement points and control loops the control philosophy requires, tag structure per the project instrument numbering procedure, system interfaces, and alarms, interlocks, trips and fail actions as quoted. Never assigns safety functions, ranges or setpoints. Use when the user asks to "run the instrumentation and control enrichment", "add the instrument section to the P&ID draft", "list the control loops the philosophy requires" or "carry the PFD instruments into the P&ID" after the piping section. Do not use for safety flags, SIL or trip classification, use process-safety-flags instead; do not use to assign tag numbers, use tagging-and-numbering. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a DRAFT data dictionary from a schema export, table definition, sample rows or a partial existing dictionary: one row per field with the name as stated, type as stated or observed, meaning quoted from the documentation supplied, owner, allowed values, and UNKNOWN wherever no source defines the field, plus a gap list for the data owner. Never infers a definition from a column name. Use when the user asks to "build a data dictionary for this table", "document these columns", "what does each field mean", "turn this schema export into a dictionary" or "fill in the field definitions from these documents". Do not use for profiling values or finding patterns in the data, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for metric definitions, use kpi-definition-sheet; for logging data defects, use data-quality-issue-log. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reads an accounts payable exception list (mismatches, possible duplicates, missing or exhausted purchase orders, missing receipts, vendor or bank detail differences) with any invoice, purchase order and receipt data supplied, and returns a DRAFT action sheet: per line, the exception as stated, the facts as read, the difference where both sides exist, one proposed next action for the accounts payable clerk to perform, who or what it needs, and a draft query, with UNKNOWN wherever the data is silent. Use when the user asks to "review these invoice exceptions", "work through the AP exception queue", "what should I do with these blocked invoices", "propose next steps for the three-way match failures" or "sort out the duplicate and missing PO invoices". Do not use for a purchase order log screened for anomalies, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; for an expense claim against policy, use expense-policy-precheck. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns reported data problems (messages, tickets, meeting notes, complaints) into one DRAFT issue log: one row per issue with the symptom as reported, dataset and fields named, reproduction steps, affected reports, first seen date, reporters, a suggested owner, and blank severity, root cause and status cells for the owner. Never asserts a root cause, severity or fix. Use when the user asks to "log these data issues", "turn these complaints about the numbers into an issue list", "build the data quality backlog", "which reports are hit by this data problem" or "write up the reproduction steps for this data bug". Do not use for exploring or profiling a dataset, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for an IT incident write-up, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for tracking fix actions once assigned, use corrective-action-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Checks an extracted PFD register as a process model and returns findings and unknowns only: connectivity closure, stream numbering, presence of design conditions, equipment duty text, phase and service labels, package and off-sheet scope, boundaries, operating cases, and agreement between the drawing and attached process documents, then holds at gate G2. Creates no design values. Use when the user asks to "check the process model", "verify connectivity" or "is the PFD ready for enrichment" after gate G1 and before enrichment. Do not use for extraction from the drawing, use pfd-intake-and-extraction instead; do not use to propose lines or instruments, use piping-enrichment. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Proposes the piping content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: line inventory with off-page continuity and required ancillary lines, line identification elements per the project line numbering procedure, connection items at nozzles matched to a quoted schedule, per quoted standards, specification break questions and observations. Every proposal cites its source and revision; no source, no proposal; never sizes a line or selects a class. Use when the user asks to "run the piping enrichment", "start the discipline enrichment", "list the lines the P&ID adds to this PFD" or "fill the line identifiers from the numbering procedure" after gate G2. Do not use for instruments, loops or instrument tags, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use before gate G2, use process-model-check. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Pre-checks one expense claim or travel plan, line by line, against the expense or travel policy the user supplies, and returns a DRAFT precheck sheet: the policy clause matched to each line, the limit quoted as the policy states it, whether the amount sits within, at or outside that limit, missing receipts, pre-approvals or justifications, and neutral questions for the approver and the claimant, with UNKNOWN wherever the policy or the claim is silent. Use when the user asks to "check this expense claim against policy", "pre-check my travel request", "is this claim within policy", "review these expenses before I submit them", "what receipts or approvals are missing" or "prepare the approver's questions for this claim". Do not use for a purchase order log or spend extract, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; do not use to compare a policy against a standard or regulation, use policy-gap-review instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns a list of KPIs or metrics into a DRAFT definition sheet: one row per KPI with the name as stated, formula quoted from a source, source system, owner, refresh cadence, unit, filters and known caveats, with UNKNOWN in every cell no source fills and a gap list grouped by data owner. Never composes a formula, sets a target or names an owner the sources do not state. Use when the user asks to "define these KPIs", "build a metrics definition sheet", "document how each KPI is calculated", "which of our KPIs have no owner or formula" or "reconcile the two KPI lists". Do not use for the weekly numbers report, use kpi-weekly-report-writer instead; for field-level definitions of a table, use data-dictionary-builder; for logging a wrong figure as a defect, use data-quality-issue-log. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns an actuals-versus-budget extract (spreadsheet, export or pasted table) into a DRAFT variance table with absolute and percentage variances, favourable or adverse marking and a ranking by size, then drafts plain-language driver hypotheses for each material variance as questions to verify with a named owner, never as asserted causes. Use when the user asks to "explain these variances", "why are we over budget on this line", "write the variance commentary for the management pack", "actuals versus budget analysis" or "which lines drive the variance". Do not use for a dataset with no budget or comparison column, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for weekly operational figures against last week, use kpi-weekly-report-writer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Synthesises a batch of customer feedback (survey answers, reviews, ticket and chat comments) into a DRAFT themed report: coded themes with record counts and shares, anonymised verbatim quotes cited to record codes, contradictions and unverified claims, and the follow-up questions to answer next. Produces no sentiment score or percentage positive as fact; ratings appear only as distributions with n. Use when the user asks to "theme this feedback", "what are customers saying", "summarise these survey answers", "analyse these reviews", "find the top complaints in these comments" or "code this voice of the customer data". Do not use for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis instead; for sorting a live queue and drafting replies, use ticket-triage-pack; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reads a cash forecast (spreadsheet, model export, pasted table or the narrative that accompanies it) and returns a DRAFT assumptions sheet: every assumption the forecast rests on, stated or implied by the figures, with its value as read, its location in the model, the cash lines it drives, its stated source or "not stated", the evidence that would test it, an owner, and one neutral challenge question, so a reviewer can work through the assumptions one by one. Use when the user asks to "list the assumptions behind this cash forecast", "what is this cash flow forecast assuming", "prepare the challenge questions for the treasury review", "pull out the drivers of the 13-week cash forecast" or "build an assumptions register for the liquidity plan". Do not use for actuals against budget by line, use budget-variance-explainer instead; do not use for the case behind a capital request, use capex-request-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reads a process flow diagram (image, PDF or native export) with its job header and returns a provenance-tagged extraction register: equipment, streams, tags, connectivity, instruments already shown, notes and legends, connectivity findings and an explicit UNKNOWN list, then holds at gate G1. Extracts and records only; never enriches, tags or proposes. Use when the user asks to "start a PFD to P&ID job", "read in the attached PFD", "extract the equipment and streams from this PFD" or "read this PFD into a register". Do not use for checking the model, use process-model-check instead; do not use to propose lines, instruments or tags, use piping-enrichment or instrumentation-and-control-enrichment after gate G2. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。