These three original fictional IT opportunities show how the free checklist separates capability coverage from blockers and unknowns. Follow the inputs, the rule and the recorded next step.
Synthetic training scenarios, not real notices or customer results | Method 1.0.0
Fixed evaluation time: September 19, 2026, at 12:00 UTC. Dates below are frozen training inputs, not current deadlines. Every source URL is deliberately blank because there is no real notice. The source-reference check therefore stays unknown in all three examples.
The results describe the tool at that evaluation time. Entering the same historical deadline into the live tool later can change its timing result.
01 / Data platform migration
A missing capability stays a question.
More review needed
A fictional consultancy is comfortable with data engineering and cloud migration. The fictional scope also calls for security assessment, but that capability is absent from the company's list. Eligibility and delivery availability have not been confirmed.
Example 1: the same facts as the homepage's synthetic example
Company terms
Data engineering, Cloud migration, Python
Required terms
Data engineering, Cloud migration, Security assessment
Eligibility / scope / capacity
Unknown / Yes / Unknown
Deadline / preparation threshold
Not entered / 7 days
Evidence
Notes state that eligibility, team availability, deadline and security coverage still need confirmation.
What the rules produce
67% capability coverage: two of the three required terms match after normalization. Python is not a required term here, so it does not increase coverage. There are no failed checks. Five checks stay unknown: source reference, eligibility, response timing, delivery capacity and capability checklist. Scope fit and source-evidence presence pass based on the entered answers.
The recorded decision
Review. Confirm eligibility, security coverage and proposal capacity before making a bid decision. The missing term is not proof of ineligibility; it is a reason to inspect the actual requirement and the firm's evidence.
What would change the review?
A genuine supporting record might establish that the firm can perform the required assessment. An accurate capability entry would then close the term gap. The other four unknown checks would still need resolution. Renaming an unrelated service just to increase the percentage would not supply evidence.
Open the checklist and select “Try a synthetic example” to reproduce this case. This example has no deadline, so its timing finding does not age into an expired-date blocker.
02 / Cloud operations transition
A complete term match does not create a team.
A blocker needs attention
A fictional consultancy lists every capability requested by a cloud-operations transition. Its delivery lead confirms that existing commitments leave no available team for the required start. The firm records that limitation instead of allowing the capability percentage to dominate the decision.
Example 2: evaluated at September 19, 2026, 12:00 UTC
Company and required terms
Cloud migration, Terraform, Monitoring
Eligibility / scope / capacity
Eligible (fictional self-reported assumption) / Yes / No
Deadline / preparation threshold
October 19, 2026, 12:00 UTC / 7 days
Evidence
Fictional review notes record matching scope and a delivery lead's statement that no team is available for the assumed start.
What the rules produce
100% capability coverage and 30.0 days of preparation time. Delivery capacity fails because the entered answer is No. The source-reference check remains unknown. The other five checks pass based on the supplied fictional facts. One failed check is enough for the blocker result.
The recorded decision
No-bid. The firm cannot support the assumed delivery start with its available team. The rationale records the staffing constraint so that a later reviewer understands why a technically suitable opportunity was declined.
What would change the review?
A verified schedule change or a properly confirmed delivery arrangement could justify a fresh capacity assessment. If capacity becomes Yes, the result still needs review while the source URL is blank. A promise to “find people later” is not the same as confirmed capacity.
03 / Software integration support
The deadline is open. The preparation window is not.
A blocker needs attention
A fictional software consultancy has confirmed technical fit and team availability. Its own preparation policy requires seven days, but the entered response deadline is only three days away at the fixed evaluation time.
Example 3: evaluated at September 19, 2026, 12:00 UTC
Fictional notes confirm scope and capacity but record a seven-day internal preparation requirement.
What the rules produce
100% capability coverage and 3.0 days remaining. The timing check fails because three days is less than the entered seven-day threshold. The source-reference check remains unknown. The other five checks pass. The notice does not need to be closed for the firm's preparation threshold to produce a blocker.
The recorded decision
Review. Confirm whether an official extension exists and whether the preparation estimate remains justified. Keeping the decision at Review does not remove the timing blocker.
What would change the review?
A verified extension to September 29 at 12:00 UTC would provide ten days at the fixed evaluation time. That would pass the seven-day preparation rule, leaving the source-reference unknown. Lowering the threshold merely to clear the warning does not create preparation time; any change should reflect a supported plan.
What these examples teach
Coverage and readiness are different. Full term coverage cannot cancel a reported timing, capacity, eligibility or scope blocker.
Unknown is a result. The tool does not invent missing facts. A reference link and evidence notes are presence checks, not verification.
Your decision remains yours. Review, Shortlist, Bid and No-bid record the firm's judgment independently of the deterministic findings.
Time changes the result. Save the evaluation time and recheck material facts before committing effort.
