Requirement Change Monitor

Challenges Requirement Change Monitor addresses

Done by hand, proposal management means gathering requirements you are working to and customer message, working through 3 separate passes over the same material, then producing what this message is, changes detected and what this means. None of it is difficult and all of it is exacting, which is the combination people are worst at holding. The errors that matter are the ones a tired reader does not notice, and they surface later — in a reconciliation, or in somebody’s reply. It starts whenever something arrives, which means someone has to be watching for it to start at all. As volume grows the work does not get harder, only longer, and the first thing to go is the checking.

Requirement Change Monitor runs that same sequence end to end and returns the result as structured artefacts. What it cannot settle it hands over rather than guesses at, and your correction is kept: it asks “Did this read the change correctly?” after every run, and those answers become the set it is measured against. Nothing that moves money, alters a contract or reaches a customer executes without human approval, and every action is written to an audit log. The gain is in the volume that no longer has to be read, not in removing the judgement.

How it works

Step 1: Reading the agreed requirements

First of 3. It works from requirements you are working to and customer message and feeds the step after it.

Key Tasks:

• Locating the material: It works from requirements you are working to and customer message, so nothing has to be forwarded, re-keyed or renamed first.
• Handling the format it arrives in: Scanned pages, native documents, spreadsheets and message bodies are all read the same way, including layouts where the relevant figure sits inside a table rather than a labelled field.
• Pulling the fields that matter: Only the fields the rest of the run needs are extracted. What cannot be read confidently is recorded as unread rather than filled in with a best guess.

Outcome:

• Fields extracted: The fields are available to the steps that follow, with anything unreadable listed rather than silently defaulted — which is what stops a bad extraction becoming a confident wrong answer three steps later.

Step 2: Detecting changes

Step 2 of 3. It takes what step 1 produced and hands its result to step 3.

Key Tasks:

• Working from the run so far: This step takes what step 1 produced and carries it toward step 3.
• Following the same rules each time: The behaviour is configuration rather than judgement made fresh per run, so proposal management is handled the same way every time.
• Surfacing what it cannot settle: Anything ambiguous is passed on as ambiguous rather than resolved silently.

Outcome:

• Passed on: The result passes to the next step, with anything unresolved carried forward as an open item rather than dropped.

Step 3: Checking whether scope moved

Last of 3. It takes what step 2 produced and produces what this message is and changes detected.

Key Tasks:

• Running the checks in order: Every rule for proposal management is applied to every record, in the same order each run. A record is not skipped because it looks routine.
• Recording evidence, not verdicts: Each check stores what was expected and what was found, so a failure can be understood without re-running anything.
• Separating clear from unclear: A check the agent cannot settle is marked unresolved rather than passed, which keeps "checked" meaning checked.

Outcome:

• All checks pass: The record clears with its evidence attached, available if anyone asks later.
• A check fails: The record is held with the failing checks named and the rest shown as passed, so a reviewer sees the scope of the problem rather than only that there is one.

Step 4: Your review, and what it changes

The run ends with a person, not with a result being filed.

Key Tasks:

• Asking a specific question: It asks “Did this read the change correctly?” rather than for a rating. A question about this run is answerable; a score out of five is not.
• Keeping the correction: What you change is recorded against the case that produced it, so the disagreement is retrievable rather than absorbed.
• Building the evaluation set: Those cases become what the agent is measured on. It is scored against your judgement rather than against a general benchmark.

Outcome:

• A measured agent, not an assumed one: The cases Requirement Change Monitor handles well and the cases it does not are both visible, and the second list is the one that decides what changes. Nothing is retrained silently on the back of a single correction.

Why use Requirement Change Monitor?

• A batch is one run, not a hundred: It works the whole set in a single pass and returns a row per item with its verdict, so the volume that needs no attention never has to be opened.
• Takes documents as they arrive: Scanned pages, native files and awkward layouts are read as they are. Nothing has to be renamed, re-keyed or converted into a template before a run.
• Works from the message itself: The body and its attachments are the input, so a request does not have to be transcribed into a form before anything can happen to it.
• Starts from the message itself: A matching message in the connected inbox is the trigger, so nothing sits in a queue waiting to be noticed. Messages that do not match are left alone rather than processed and discarded.
• Corrected by the people using it: After each run it asks “Did this read the change correctly?”. Those answers become the evaluation set, which means it is measured against your judgement rather than ours.