Competitor evidence comparison

When this is useful

You have the stated inputs and want a reviewable draft with evidence boundaries.

Inputs and output

Dated primary-page excerpts with source IDs, the buyer question and equivalent product editions

A scoped comparison matrix with unknown cells

Prompt sequence

Inspect evidence and missing inputs; prepare the artifact using supported facts; review and correct the result against task-specific checks.

Worked example — fictional

Fictional: competitor A documents SSO on Enterprise; competitor B does not mention SSO on the supplied page.

A: Enterprise SSO documented. B: unknown from supplied evidence, rather than absent.

Review criterion

Absence of a mention stays unknown; dates and edition scopes travel with each claim.

Put it to work

1. Fill the input worksheet and remove sensitive material that your model cannot receive.
2. Run the prompts in sequence in an approved model, carrying forward the evidence ledger.
3. Check the resulting artifact independently and keep unresolved questions visible.

Limits and tradeoffs

This is a manually authored prompt workbook, not a model-tested automation or an executed integration. Output quality and cost depend on the chosen model and inputs.

Worksheet preview

# Competitor evidence comparison

Original prompt workbook by Jon Bishop. CC BY 4.0. Model execution has not been tested.

## Intended output

A scoped comparison matrix with unknown cells

## Input worksheet

Dated primary-page excerpts with source IDs, the buyer question and equivalent product editions

Fill in:
- Decision and owner:
- Source ID, URL/file, date and exact supporting observation:
- Relevant population, version or edition:
- Approved constraints and sensitive fields to remove:
- Missing evidence:

Use sanitized inputs. Follow your approved model provider and data handling rules. No external action is part of these prompts.

## Prompt 1

```text
Inspect the supplied inputs for competitor evidence comparison. Identify supported facts with their source IDs, contradictions and missing information. Do not infer missing product capabilities, numbers or customer evidence. Return an evidence ledger and blocking questions.

SUPPLIED INPUTS / PREVIOUS ARTIFACT:
[paste sanitized material here]
```

## Prompt 2

```text
Using only the evidence ledger and the original inputs, prepare a scoped comparison matrix with unknown cells. Label assumptions and unknowns. Keep dates, versions, cohort and edition boundaries attached to claims. Do not execute external actions.

SUPPLIED INPUTS / PREVIOUS ARTIFACT:
[paste sanitized material here]
```

## Prompt 3

```text
Review the draft against this criterion: Absence of a mention stays unknown; dates and edition scopes travel with each claim. List failed checks, unsupported claims and corrections. Return a corrected draft plus unresolved questions; do not claim checks were performed when the inputs do not contain their results.

SUPPLIED INPUTS / PREVIOUS ARTIFACT:
[paste sanitized material here]
```

## Worked example — fictional, manually authored

Input: Fictional: competitor A documents SSO on Enterprise; competitor B does not mention SSO on the supplied page.

Expected bounded output: A: Enterprise SSO documented. B: unknown from supplied evidence, rather than absent.

This illustrates the review standard; it is not a recorded model run.

## Human review

Absence of a mention stays unknown; dates and edition scopes travel with each claim.

Verify factual claims against the original evidence, check calculations or commands independently and record unresolved issues. Save the inputs, prompt version, model version and corrections if you run this workbook. Publication, sending, account changes and spending are separate decisions.