Workflow: compare lobby stone

Task and deliverables#

Compare two lobby flooring candidates for a demo hotel. Produce a comparison, a missing-information list and a human review record. This case teaches evidence handling; it does not prescribe engineering performance or procurement decisions.

Prepare sources#

Download the demo candidate schedule. In real projects, add valid quotations, test reports, design requirements and sample records, using standards confirmed by responsible project staff.

Steps#

1. Create a lobby-material comparison conversation and attach sources. Ask for an inventory of readable files and revisions.
2. Extract IDs, specifications, finishes, units and locations before ranking candidates.
3. Define common criteria. Require quotation dates, tax/freight terms and visible gaps.
4. Cross-check originals for mixed rows, incorrect units and obsolete values.
5. Request a conditional comparison only after evidence is sufficient. Keep uncertainty in the conclusion.
6. Save a new file and track it through Needs Review, human checking and Done.

Copy this request#

Use only the attachments to compare the lobby flooring candidates.
Preserve each material ID. Cite the filename and page or row when verifiable.
Separate currency, pricing unit, tax, freight and validity period. Do not rank incomparable prices directly.
Mark missing test reports “Required”; do not infer ratings.
Finish with questions that need supplier confirmation.

What should the result contain?#

Acceptance#

Unproven fields stay unresolved. Candidates are not described as approved samples. Unconfirmed quotations are not used for orders. Preserve reviewed experience through the knowledge workflow.