---
name: tbt-proposal-qa-from-evidence
description: "Use adversarial questions while keeping answers grounded in the supplied proposal for Prepare a challenging Q&A from an actual proposal. Use permitted source material; this kit does not authorise external actions."
---

# Prepare a challenging Q&A from an actual proposal

Use adversarial questions while keeping answers grounded in the supplied proposal.

Use the supplied source as authority. Check the account supports the actual file or image operation before attempting it.

## Task instruction

Prepare a challenging Q&A for this supplied proposal and [audience].
Test scope, assumptions, cost commitments, evidence and implementation.
For each question, separate an answer supported by source passages,
an answer needing qualification and an unanswered gap. Preserve exact
proposal/approval status. Do not invent tests, benefits, customers,
controls or commitments to make the answers reassuring. Give a focused
evidence request for each material gap, with source IDs for known answers.

## Source boundaries

- Proposed two-week pilot
- No external sending
- No approval or results supplied

## Review and correction

Return a focused unknown where the proposal lacks evidence. A confident answer is not a substitute for an approval or result.

Answer [ID] claims [unsupported result]. Source [ID] establishes only
[actual proposal fact]. Rewrite the answer with that boundary and
state the exact record or check needed for the unresolved part.
Keep the challenging question. Do not invent a softer version that
avoids the gap or add a new unverified claim in the explanation.

Use references/practice-source.json for the labelled example. The practice HTML is a local teaching tool; it does not call an AI service. Apply this method to the user's supplied facts rather than copying fictional example values. Do not infer approval or permission to publish.