Auteur: AILesson10 min de préparationTesté avec:ChatGPTRévisé: 2026-08-28
Réponse rapide
Put differently structured offers on a common scope, quantity, term, currency, tax, and risk basis. Fournir: Vendor quotes, Comparison basis, Analysis rules. Résultat attendu: A source-linked quote comparison with normalized costs, exclusions, assumptions, gaps, risks, and clarification questions.
1
Ajouter votre contexte
Votre texte reste dans ce navigateur. AILesson Prompts ne l’envoie ni à un modèle ni à un serveur.
2
Votre prompt
Les champs non remplis restent visibles sous forme d’espaces réservés, afin que vous puissiez quand même copier et modifier le prompt.
Normalize the supplied vendor quotes into a comparable, auditable table.
Vendor, date, validity, line items, quantities, units, currency, tax, discounts, terms, scope, exclusions, and locators:
[quotes]
Required scope, quantity, usage, term, locations, currency, exchange rate, tax, inflation, implementation, support, exit, and options:
[basis]
Rounding, missing data, scenarios, sensitivity, columns, reviewers, and decision limits:
[rules]
Preserve each quoted amount and condition before normalization. Create a field map linking every table cell to its vendor document locator. Align scope, units, quantities, contract years, billing timing, currency, tax basis, discount prerequisites, implementation, migration, training, required support, usage overage, price increases, renewal, termination, export, travel, and other mandatory costs. Calculate only with supplied values; show formulas, units, exchange-rate source/date, rounding, and whether totals are quoted, calculated, assumed, unknown, or not applicable. Never treat blank as zero, optional as included, discount as unconditional, annual as term total, or tax-inclusive as tax-exclusive. Do not compare totals until material scope gaps are visible. Provide base, low, and high scenarios only from approved assumptions. Separate commercial comparison from quality scoring. End with contradictions, expired quotes, clarification questions by vendor, sensitivity drivers, finance/procurement review, and a statement that lowest known total is not necessarily best value.
Privé par défautL’assemblage du prompt se fait localement dans votre navigateur. Évitez de placer des informations confidentielles dans un service d’IA, sauf si votre organisation l’autorise.
De l'entrée au résultat
Un exemple détaillé
Voyez comment un contexte concret transforme cette recette en résultat utilisable.
Entrée réelle
Vendor quotes
Vendor A quote A-44, Aug 15, valid to Sep 15: GBP 58/user/month for 38 users, billed annually; implementation GBP 8,000; admin training GBP 1,500; Premium Support required at GBP 4,000/year; 5% annual license increase from year 2; prices exclude VAT. Data export on termination included. Vendor B quote B-19, Aug 12, valid to Sep 5: EUR 2,250/month platform fee up to 40 users; implementation and migration EUR 12,000; training included; Standard Support included but required response SLA not stated; export fee blank; price fixed for initial 3-year term; prices include German VAT 19%. Both quote email/chat and SSO. Source line locators supplied as A lines 3-12 and B pages 2-4.
Comparison basis
38 users, 3 years, GBP comparison, UK buyer recovers VAT so compare net of VAT, subject to Finance confirmation. Approved rate Aug 20: GBP 1 = EUR 1.17. Required: implementation, migration if stated, admin training, support meeting required SLA, and exit export. No usage overage assumption. Round line items to nearest GBP, totals to GBP 10. Vendor B VAT-inclusive values should be divided by 1.19 before currency conversion. Export fee and SLA gap remain unknown, not zero.
Analysis rules
Columns: scope item, A quoted, B quoted, normalized A GBP, normalized B GBP, status, locator, note. Missing mandatory costs make total incomplete. One base scenario only; no low/high assumptions approved. Finance validates VAT and exchange rate; Procurement validates scope and validity. Do not recommend a winner.
Exemple de sortie
Comparison basis: 38 users, 36 months, net of recoverable VAT pending Finance confirmation, GBP 1 = EUR 1.17 on Aug 20.
Scope item
Vendor A quoted
Vendor B quoted
A normalized GBP
B normalized GBP
Status / locator
Note
License/platform year 1
GBP 58 × 38 × 12
EUR 2,250 × 12 incl. VAT
26,448
19,393
Calculated; A lines 3-4, B p2
B: 27,000 / 1.19 / 1.17
Year 2
+5%
Fixed
27,770
19,393
Calculated
A 26,448 × 1.05
Year 3
+5% again
Fixed
29,159
19,393
Calculated
A 27,770 × 1.05
Implementation/migration
GBP 8,000
EUR 12,000 incl. VAT
8,000
8,621
Quoted/calculated; A l6, B p3
B includes migration
Admin training
GBP 1,500
Included
1,500
0 included
Quoted; A l7, B p3
Included is not blank
Required support
GBP 4,000/year
Standard included; SLA unknown
12,000
Unknown
A quoted; B p4 gap
B fit to required SLA unconfirmed
Exit export
Included
Fee blank
0 included
Unknown
A l12; B p4
Blank is not zero
Vendor A known three-year total = 26,448 + 27,770 + 29,159 + 8,000 + 1,500 + 12,000 = GBP 104,877, rounded total GBP 104,880. Vendor B known subtotal = 19,393 × 3 + 8,621 = GBP 66,800 before unknown compliant-support and export costs. B therefore has no comparable complete total.
Clarify with B: response SLA and any tier required to meet it; termination export format and fee; whether German VAT applies to this UK transaction. Both quotes require Procurement validity review because B expires Sep 5. Finance must validate VAT recovery and the approved exchange rate. These are commercial figures only; no quality score or recommendation follows from the lower known subtotal.
Pourquoi cela fonctionne
1
Source-linked normalization exposes cheap totals created by missing scope rather than real savings.
2
Status labels prevent calculated and assumed values from looking vendor-quoted.
Vérifier le résultat
Can every amount, condition, and formula be traced to a quote or approved basis?
Are blanks, options, discounts, taxes, terms, and scope gaps treated correctly?
Are commercial totals kept separate from quality and risk evaluation?
Utilisez-la en toute confiance
Questions fréquentes
Des réponses pratiques sur le bon moment pour utiliser cette recette, ce qu’il faut fournir et les cas où une vérification humaine reste nécessaire.
What should I prepare before using “Normalize vendor quotes into a comparison table”?
For “Normalize vendor quotes into a comparison table,” prepare Vendor quotes, Comparison basis, and Analysis rules. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.
When is the “Normalize vendor quotes into a comparison table” result not ready to use?
The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A source-linked quote comparison with normalized costs, exclusions, assumptions, gaps, risks, and clarification questions—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.
Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Normalize vendor quotes into a comparison table”?
The published test record for “Normalize vendor quotes into a comparison table” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.
Votre prochaine étape : mettez l’IA à contribution
Passez de la compréhension de l'IA à l'action. Entraînez-vous à formuler des requêtes, à évaluer et à améliorer les résultats grâce à des leçons interactives pour le travail et la vie quotidienne.
ChatGPT
