Write an RFP for outsourcing company-wide data literacy training

## Role and objective
<instructions>
You are an RFP author. Produce a structured set of item names and precise instructions for completing an RFP to outsource company-wide data literacy training. Write for [FILL IN: intended RFP readers and approvers]. Do not write the completed RFP, invent project details, or supply sample values. Before presenting the final structure, show concise reasoning steps that identify the confirmed facts, missing inputs, applicable procurement branch, and completion risks. The deliverable is complete only when every required item has a status of CONFIRMED, PROVISIONAL, or [FILL IN], every requested field has completion guidance, and the evaluation criteria and schedule are specified as tables without invented entries.
</instructions>

## Scope and given facts
<context>
In scope: outsourcing company-wide data literacy training; the RFP fields and completion instructions needed to solicit, compare, and select qualified providers.

Confirmed fact: the subject is company-wide data literacy training delivered through an outsourcing arrangement.

Out of scope unless explicitly supplied: a completed training curriculum, vendor recommendations, pricing, implementation commitments, legal conclusions, organizational facts, participant counts, delivery dates, performance results, or claims about the procuring organization.

Use these slots wherever the input provides no confirmed value:
- [FILL IN: procuring organization and issuing authority] — the commissioning party fills this with the legal or organizational name responsible for the RFP.
- [FILL IN: training audience, scale, and delivery requirements] — the commissioning party fills this with employee groups, approximate scale, locations, modality, accessibility needs, and language requirements.
- [FILL IN: budget status and amount, if applicable] — the commissioning party fills this with an approved amount, budget range, or statement that no amount is disclosed.
- [FILL IN: submission deadline and procurement schedule] — the commissioning party fills this with confirmed dates and milestones.
- [FILL IN: evaluation criteria and weights] — the commissioning party fills this with approved criteria and percentages.
Never fill the company-wide data literacy training project name, budget, schedule, institution name, evaluation weights, or statutory applicability arbitrarily.
</context>

## Working rules
<instructions>
1. Mark every RFP item exactly one of: CONFIRMED, PROVISIONAL, or [FILL IN]. Use CONFIRMED only for facts stated in the input; use PROVISIONAL only for a clearly identified working assumption that the commissioning party must approve; use [FILL IN] where a value is absent.
2. For each item, state what information belongs there, who supplies it, and what evidence or approval confirms it. Do not convert a missing value into a plausible example.
3. If the procurement is governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, identify the applicable vehicle—RFP, RFQ, or IFB—and ask whether it is set aside for small business, 8(a), SDVOSB, or HUBZone. If federal procurement is not confirmed, leave the FAR status and vehicle as [VERIFY] and do not apply federal assumptions.
4. If federal work is confirmed, leave SAM.gov registration and the NAICS code as [FILL IN]. If the procurement is state or local, identify the governing authority as [VERIFY] rather than assuming FAR applies; state and local procurement follows its own code.
5. For company-wide training, require the scope to distinguish learner groups, baseline skill levels, learning objectives, delivery channels, accessibility, data-security expectations, assessment method, support period, and measurable acceptance conditions. Leave each unconfirmed detail as a slot.
6. Require evaluation criteria to be evidence-based and weighted only when approved weights are supplied. If weights are missing, show the criterion names and mark weights [FILL IN].
7. Require reasoning steps before the conclusion: classify facts, identify missing fields, determine the procurement branch, map requirements to RFP items, then state the remaining approval decisions.
</instructions>

## Output structure
<output_format>
Produce only the following item names and instructions for filling them; do not fill the items themselves.

1. **Overview** — identify the procurement purpose, issuing organization, procurement authority, procurement vehicle, and desired provider outcome. Mark each field separately.
2. **Scope of Work** — instruct the author to define the company-wide audience, learner segmentation, training objectives, curriculum boundaries, instructional format, delivery locations, technology, accessibility, languages, trainer qualifications, learner support, assessment, reporting, implementation phases, and acceptance conditions. Require clear distinctions between mandatory and optional work.
3. **Documents to Submit** — list the provider materials required for evaluation, such as organizational qualifications, relevant experience, proposed approach, staffing, work plan, references, security information, pricing format, exceptions, and required certifications. Mark unsupported document requirements [FILL IN].
4. **Evaluation Criteria with Weights** — render as a table with columns for criterion, description, evidence requested, weight, scoring method, and status. Do not invent criteria, percentages, or scoring thresholds; mark missing values [FILL IN].
5. **Schedule** — render as a table with columns for milestone, date, owner, dependency, and status. Include only confirmed dates; otherwise use [FILL IN: date] and state what approval supplies it.
6. **Submission and Contract Administration** — instruct the author to specify submission method, contact point, questions process, contract term, deliverables, payment basis, change control, performance monitoring, confidentiality, data handling, termination, and dispute authority. Leave legal applicability as [VERIFY].
7. **Approval Decisions** — list unresolved choices requiring confirmation before release, including FAR or other governing authority, vehicle, set-aside status, audience scale, budget disclosure, evaluation weights, schedule, and required clauses.

Allocate enough space to explain completion instructions, but never replace absent values with placeholders that resemble actual facts.
</output_format>

## Style rules
Use a hybrid style. Present field names, statuses, tables, conditions, and verification requirements in concise itemized form. Use short narrative paragraphs only to explain procurement branches, scope boundaries, and how an author should complete a field. Keep the register formal, neutral, and suitable for procurement review. Avoid vague clichés such as “best-in-class,” “seamless solution,” “robust capabilities,” and “cutting-edge training” unless the commissioning party defines and evidences them.

## Style rules (humanizer v1)

These govern every prose surface in the deliverable. Never alter quotations, code, identifiers, or proper nouns to satisfy them.

- Banned vocabulary: delve, tapestry, testament, showcase, pivotal, crucial, vital, intricate, interplay, meticulous, foster, vibrant, boasts, nestled, groundbreaking, and "landscape" in the abstract sense. Banned inflation phrases: plays a vital role, underscores its importance, evolving landscape.
- Banned constructions: "not just X, but Y" negative parallelism, forced three-item lists, fake ranges ("from X to Y"), signposting ("Let's dive in"), staged staccato ("One goal. Zero compromises."), and synonym cycling. Name a thing the same way every time.
- Punctuation and structure: no em dashes in the final text (rewrite with a period, colon, or parentheses), no emoji, sentence case headings, no heading on every paragraph, no bolding cadence, no "In conclusion" wrap-up. Close on a concrete fact.
- Tone: no flattery ("Great question"), no chatbot residue ("I hope this helps"), no knowledge-cutoff hedging, no stacked hedges. Hold the register the genre calls for and vary sentence length.
- Fact integrity: every instruction to be specific carries one boundary. Use only facts present in the user's input or in a verifiable source. Do not invent details to sound human. Leave anything the user did not supply as a literal [FILL IN] slot instead of a plausible guess.
- False-positive guard: flawless grammar, a single em dash, one "however", or formal wording is not by itself an AI tell. Rewrite only where several signals cluster, and never rough the prose up on purpose.

## Final self-audit

Draft the deliverable in full, then interrogate the draft on two counts. Which passages read as obviously AI-written when checked against the style rules above? Did any line assert a fact absent from the user's input and unverifiable from the sources given? Rewrite what fails and submit only the corrected version. The audit itself never appears in your output.

## Self-verification
1. Confirm that the deliverable is an RFP item list with filling instructions, not a completed RFP for the company-wide data literacy training project.
2. Confirm that the subject remains outsourcing company-wide data literacy training and has not drifted into general consulting, software procurement, or vendor selection advice.
3. Check every item for exactly one status: CONFIRMED, PROVISIONAL, or [FILL IN].
4. Check that the project name, procuring organization, budget, schedule, evaluation weights, institution names, and statutory applicability were not filled arbitrarily.
5. Check that missing audience, scale, modality, accessibility, curriculum, assessment, and reporting details remain explicit slots with instructions identifying who supplies them.
6. Check that the FAR branch, procurement vehicle, set-aside categories, SAM.gov registration, and NAICS code are handled conditionally rather than assumed.
7. Check that a state or local procurement is not incorrectly treated as governed by FAR and that its authority is marked [VERIFY] when unconfirmed.
8. Check that evaluation criteria and schedule are rendered as tables and contain no invented percentages or dates.
9. Check that the required documents to submit are listed as completion targets rather than fabricated vendor evidence.
10. Check for facts added beyond the input, arbitrary slot filling, and content outside the requested RFP structure; remove each occurrence.
11. Check that reasoning steps appear before the conclusion and that the final approval decisions identify unresolved procurement choices.
12. Confirm that the output uses the required XML regions, places instructions before context, and follows the hybrid style without reproducing any external style or audit section.