• 1st Round (Usable Version) Template Implementation: Added the

  0.121

  universal template in

  0.12

  to reduce output drift caused by "knowing two rounds of delivery but not how to write the first round".
• Standardization of Evidence Anchor Tags: Unified the

  Evidence Anchor([Direct Quote]/[Paraphrase]/[Gap])

  in Phase 0 and key table column names, and clarified the writing rules for the three states, reducing caliber discrepancies when "citation is restricted/original text cannot be found".
• Version History Moved Externally: The main Skill only retains current version changes; historical summaries are uniformly placed in the README to reduce token usage and execution drift.

1. Feasibility: Compliance + technical/resource deliverability
2. Value for Money: Comprehensive match of price/benefit/opportunity cost/long-term burden (including payment collection/liability risks)
3. Risk Mitigation Strategies: Contract terms + execution processes + technical controls + stop-loss mechanisms

Note: The total score is only a summary and cannot cover single-point fatal risks (red lines/hard gates take priority).

1. Phase 0: Structured extraction → Key field snapshot + information sufficiency

   X/8

   (see 3 + 3.4)
2. Phase 0.25/0.5: Pitfall signal + conflict detection (see 4 + 5)
3. Phase 1: Red line check (see 6) → If hit,

   Reject/Pause

   , skip full scoring
4. Commitment Gates (see 2.6 / Appendix Q) → Decide "only pause/only ROM/milestone lockable/quote & schedule lockable"
5. Phase 2: Structured scoring (see 7 + Appendix A/E/G/H) → Output range + capping + confidence level
6. Phase 3-6: Pre-mortem → Risk register → Terms/execution → Minimum supplementary information set (see 8-11)

1. 1st Round (Usable Version): Only output

   1.4 [Overview]

   +

   [Key Field Snapshot (8 Items)]

   +

   [Red Line Check]

   +

   [Pitfall Signals (≤5)]

   +

   [Conflict Detection (≤5)]

   +

   [Top Gaps/Assumptions (3-6)]

   +

   [Required Supplementary Information (≤10 Questions)]

   .
2. 2nd Round (Full Version, Optional): After information is supplemented, output

   [Scoring Overview]/[Risk Register]/[Negotiation Terms]/[Execution Plan]/[ROM]/[Work Breakdown]

   etc.

• The user explicitly states "please output according to the full template/provide the scoring table/provide ROM three scenarios + terms"; or materials are complete (information sufficiency ≥6/8 and conflicts can be resolved).

• ...

1. ...(Associated dimension/why it will change the conclusion)

---

1. Scenario Identification (See 0.5)
2. Phase 0: Structured Extraction + Information Sufficiency X/8 (See 3 + 3.4)
3. Pitfall Signal Scanning + Conflict Detection (See 4 + 5)
4. Red Line Check (Prerequisite) (See 6)
   • Red line hit (with evidence) ⇒ Conclusion is only

     Reject

     , skip full scoring; only output "red line evidence + minimal risk set + terms/stop-loss suggestions + next steps"
   • Red line elements missing and unjudgeable ⇒ Conclusion prioritizes

     Pause (Reject Commitment Before Supplementing)

     , only output "gaps + minimum supplementary information set"
5. Only if no red line is hit and information is sufficient: Enter scoring (7) → Pre-mortem (8) → Risk register (9) → Decision/negotiation/execution (10) → Minimum supplementary information set (11)

Note: Scoring is only a summary; any "gate" (red line/hard gate/Score Capping/conflict) can directly override the upper limit of the conclusion.

• Do not replace legal advice: This Skill only provides risk framework and term suggestions; when disputes arise regarding "liability/compensation/IP/data processing/security obligations", it is recommended to involve legal counsel.
• Do not make factual assumptions: Historical references must be based on historical materials provided by the user; without materials, only "reusable models/suggestions" can be given.
• Do not fabricate evidence: Any "evidence anchor" must come from short quotes of the user's original text; if the user explicitly requests "no pasting/no quoting of original text", use

  [Paraphrase]

  according to Appendix M of

  references/assessment-standard.md

  and force a reduction in confidence level, and enter

  Pause

  if necessary.

Note: AI/LLM is an "additional tag" that can coexist with scenarios such as emergency/renewal/multi-requirement comparison; during assessment, append Appendix O checks and questions to the standard process.

1.4 [Overview]

• Overview: Overall decision + three conclusion questions + information sufficiency/confidence level + Commitment Gate (including strong commitment upper limit)
• Red line conclusion (✅/❌/⚠️) + evidence anchor/gap
• Hit pitfall signals (if any)
• 3-6 highest-leverage gaps/conflicts
• Minimum supplementary information set (≤10 questions)

• Independent scoring for each requirement
• Horizontal dimension comparison
• Strengths and weaknesses summary
• Recommendation suggestions

undefined

Pause

• Red line check shows

  ⚠️ Insufficient Information to Supplement

  and the gap determines whether the red line is triggered;
• Information sufficiency

  <=4/8

  , and the user still requests "give a yes/no answer now";
• Dense conflict items (see Appendix I) that cannot be resolved with existing materials;
• Any one of payment structure, acceptance criteria, or scope boundary is "missing + non-inferable", making it impossible to form executable terms and stop-loss points.

Explanation:

Pause

= "No delivery commitment/quote locking/scheduling commitment will be made before information is supplemented; enter full assessment or quote negotiation after supplementation".

• Evidence ledger: Default to only output "Key Field Snapshot (8 Items)"; full ledger is only output when (multi-requirement comparison/dense conflicts/user request).
• Pitfall signal scanning: Maximum 5 items (sorted by impact on conclusion).
• Conflict detection: Maximum 5 items (sorted by impact on conclusion).
• Pre-mortem: 3 items are sufficient; each item does not exceed 6 lines.
• Risk register: 6-10 items; and highlight the top 3 priorities above the table (corresponding to negotiation/stop-loss actions).
• Negotiation terms: 3-7 mandatory conditions, with top 3 marked (the three that most affect the conclusion).

• First determine Commitment Gates (see 2.6/Appendix Q): ROM belongs to G1; before reaching G3, "lock quotes/lock schedules/write fixed launch times" are prohibited.
• If in G0: Do not output ROM, only output

  Pause

  + minimum supplementary information set (avoid "looks like a quote/schedule is given but information is insufficient").
• If information sufficiency

  <6/8

  or key conflicts/hard gates/capping are hit: Only output ROM range (do not provide single-point quotes/single-point schedules).
• ROM must explicitly list: Top 3-6 key assumptions, corresponding verification plans, and "top 3 mandatory negotiation terms".
• ROM range boundaries: Align with the three-scenario caliber of Appendix H using

  best/base/worst

  (and must not bypass Appendix E hard gates).

references/assessment-standard.md

• Even if

  Reject/Pause/Quick Triage

  triggers early stop, this section must be output (otherwise it is easy to miss Commitment Gates and three conclusion questions).
• If

  information sufficiency

  is not calculated: Write

  -/8 (Not Evaluated)

  and explain the reason (e.g., early stop due to red line).

undefined

Purpose: When

Reject/Pause/Quick Triage

is triggered, avoid outputting "only one sentence conclusion" or "long but unexecutable" reports.

• [Red Line Item]: Evidence Anchor (Short Original Quote)

• Main Risk: ...
• Impact: legal/reputation/… (1 sentence)

1. Need User to Supplement/Clarify: ... (Gap)
2. Or: Revised Scheme/Alternative Path (No Red Line Trigger): ...

undefined

• Gap/Conflict: ... (Impact: Which dimensions/conclusion upper limits)

1. ...(Associated dimension/why it will change the conclusion)

undefined

• Hit: ... (Evidence Anchor) → Impact

• ...

1. ...

---

1. Forbidden to Fabricate Citations: Any "evidence anchor" must come from short quotes of the user's original text; if the user requests no pasting of original text, use

   [Paraphrase]

   according to Appendix M of

   references/assessment-standard.md

   and explicitly mark "Citation Restricted". If not found, write:

   [No Original Text Evidence Found]

   .
2. Conflicts Take Priority: When key conflicts occur, related dimensions cannot be scored 4-5, and overall confidence level usually cannot be "High".
3. Gap Triggered Upper Limit (Score Capping): Strictly follow Appendix E of

   references/assessment-standard.md

   , and list triggered items in the report.
4. Non-Linear Decision Gates Take Priority Over Total Score: Strictly follow "hard gates" in Appendix E, and list triggered gates in the report.
5. Stop-Loss First, Optimism Later: Best/worst scenarios can only be established on the premise that "key assumptions are explicitly stated", and cannot bypass capping/hard gates.
6. Consistent Scoring Caliber: Dimension scores are uniformly 0-5; total score is uniformly /100 (formula see Appendix H). Any table must explicitly mark units.
7. No "Brainstorming of Outcomes" for Historical References: Unless the user provides historical assessment reports/project reviews/key facts, only output "reusable risk patterns/term suggestions", and do not assert "what happened then/what the result was".
8. Multi-requirement Comparison: First Independent, Then Comparative: Each requirement must first complete "red line/pitfall/conflict/scoring/Pre-mortem/risk register" according to the same caliber, then output horizontal differences and recommended ranking (do not only give a combined total score).
9. Conclusions Must Be Split into Three Questions: The final output must separately provide "Feasibility / Value for Money / Risk Mitigation Strategies", and map to evidence/gaps/conflicts and term actions.
10. Conclusion Set Must Include Pause: When "insufficient information/key red line gaps/unresolvable conflicts" are triggered,

    Pause

    must be allowed as output, and do not force a score or force selection of "Accept/Negotiate Before Accepting/Reject".
11. Time Must Be Auditable: When encountering expressions such as "tomorrow/next week/as soon as possible/the sooner the better", they must be converted to absolute time points (including time zone); if conversion is not possible, it is regarded as a key gap and confidence level is reduced/trigger pause or capping (especially affecting timeline feasibility and emergency identification).
12. No False Precision in Quotes/Schedules: When the user requests "quote/schedule/man-days", default to outputting ROM ranges (Appendix N); if information sufficiency < 6/8 or key capping/conflicts are triggered, "single-point quotes/lock schedule commitments" are prohibited, only "ranges + assumptions + mandatory negotiation terms + verification plans" can be provided.
13. Best/Worst Must Be Verifiable: As long as best/worst or "if...then..." scenario deductions are given, "verification plan (Top 3-6)" must be provided simultaneously to turn key assumptions into executable verification actions (Appendix N).
14. AI/LLM Triggers Special Scanning: When keywords such as "large model/LLM/RAG/fine-tuning/Agent/conversational/generative" are hit, Appendix O red line/pitfall/questions and terms must be appended; if any of performance metrics/evaluation dataset/data authorization/cost & latency cannot be fielded, the conclusion prioritizes

    Pause

    or at most

    Negotiate Before Accepting

    (hard commitment to performance is prohibited).
15. Security and Operations Cannot Be Omitted: When requirements involve public networks, login authentication, payments, personal/sensitive information, external APIs, AI/LLM tool calls/data回流 etc., at least supplement the "minimum security/operations baseline" according to Appendix P of

    references/assessment-standard.md

    ; gaps must be entered into the risk register and affect the conclusion upper limit/negotiation terms (do not only write "pay attention to security").
16. Default to Split Work for High Uncertainty: When information sufficiency

    <6/8

    , or key assumptions ≥ 3, or ROM is marked as "For Exploration Only", default to recommending phased delivery of "Phase 0 (Verification/Discovery) → Phase 1 (Delivery)", and set Phase 0 as a pre-milestone and payment/acceptance node (see 10.6).
17. Commitment Gates Must Be Explicitly Provided: When the user requests "lock quotes/lock schedules/strong commitment to performance/sign-off", output

    Commitment Gate: G0~G3

    (see 2.6/Appendix Q), and clearly state the "allowed commitment upper limit" (e.g., Only ROM/Cannot Lock Schedule/Cannot Commit to Performance).
18. Minimal Disclosure of Sensitive Information: If evidence anchors and examples contain phone numbers/emails/ID cards/bank cards/full customer names/specific addresses/accounts/keys/tokens/private links etc., they must be desensitized with placeholders (e.g.,

    [Customer A]

    ,

    [Amount X]

    ,

    [Token Omitted]

    ), retaining only the minimal information needed to support judgment.
19. Score→Conclusion Mapping Is Only a Summary: If "score ranges" are needed to assist summary conclusions, follow Appendix N3 of

    references/assessment-standard.md

    ; but any red line/hard gate/capping/conflict takes priority over scores.

1. Red Line (Appendix B): If clearly hit with evidence ⇒

   Reject

   ; if key red line elements are missing ⇒

   Pause

   .
2. Score Capping + Conflicts (Appendix E/I): Triggered items ⇒ Apply upper limit to related dimensions; reduce overall confidence level according to Appendix G.
3. Non-Linear Decision Gates (Appendix E): Any hit ⇒ Conclusion is at most

   Negotiate Before Accepting

   (or

   Reject

   ), cannot be "Accept".
4. Then Look at Total Score and Range (Appendix H): Total score is only a summary; recommendations must link back to (red lines/hard gates/risk register/negotiation terms).

Note: When "gates" conflict with "scores", "gates" take precedence.

• G0: Pause Gate (Default Conservative)
  Trigger: Red line

  ⚠️

  with missing key elements, information sufficiency

  <=4/8

  , or any one of scope/acceptance/payment is "missing + non-inferable".
  Allowed Output:

  Pause

  (or

  Reject

  if red line is clear) + minimum supplementary information set.
  Forbidden: Quotes/lock schedules/commit to launch times/commit to performance.
• G1: ROM Gate (For Exploration Only)
  Trigger: No red line hit, and information sufficiency

  >=5/8

  ; allow ROM formation with "key assumptions + verification plans".
  Allowed Output: ROM range (Appendix N) + top 3 mandatory negotiation terms + verification plan (Top 3-6).
  Forbidden: Single-point quotes, lock schedules, strong commitment to performance (especially AI/LLM).
• G2: Negotiable Commitment Gate (Milestone Lockable, But Strong Commitment Still Forbidden)
  Trigger: Information sufficiency

  >=6/8

  , and scope/acceptance/payment/dependencies can be fielded; hard gates/conflicts have clear term safeguards.
  Allowed Output: Phased delivery (10.6) + milestone/acceptance/payment suggestions; can provide "conditional schedule/quote range" (with terms and dependencies as preconditions).
  Forbidden: "Lock schedules and single-point quotes" before contracts/dependencies are finalized; forbidden to make strong commitments to AI/LLM performance.
• G3: Strong Commitment Gate (Quote/Schedule Lockable, But Boundaries Must Still Be Stated)
  Trigger: G2 conditions are met, and key terms are formalized (contract/order/email confirmation), key dependencies and acceptance environment are available, and liability boundaries and stop-loss mechanisms are executable.
  Allowed Output: Under clear boundaries/assumptions/change mechanisms, quotes and schedules can be locked (still recommended to retain buffers and change terms).
  Still Forbidden: Commit to "100% error-free/performance guaranteed/unlimited liability" and other uncontrollable results; AI/LLM can only commit to "evaluation caliber + threshold + grayscale and rollback".

• Add a line to

  [Scoring Overview]

  in full assessments:

  Commitment Gate: Gx (Reason Summary) | Strong Commitment Upper Limit: ...

• When the user explicitly requests "finalize quotes/schedules/performance today", first give the Commitment Gate conclusion, then provide ROM/gaps and next steps (do not calculate scores first).

• Status:

  Clear / Implied(Assumed) / Missing / Conflicting

• Evidence Anchor: 1-3 short original quotes; if the user requests no pasting of original text, use

  [Paraphrase]

  according to Appendix M of

  references/assessment-standard.md

  (and explicitly mark "Citation Restricted")
• Remarks: If "Implied", must write "Key Assumption"

• [Direct Quote] "..."

  : Short original quote from user or desensitized short quote provided by user (desensitize first according to Appendix M if containing sensitive fields)

• [Paraphrase] ... (Citation Restricted)

  : User does not allow pasting original text, but provides fielded facts/auditable overview

• [Gap] ...

  : Evidence needed but not found in user materials (must affect confidence level/trigger capping/trigger pause gate)

• First Complete Full Evidence Ledger (Internal Step): Used for subsequent scoring, capping, conflicts, and questions; avoid "scoring by feeling".
• Default to Only Output Key Field Snapshot Externally: Unless requested by user or needed for multi-requirement comparison/conflict tracing, do not expand full ledger.

undefined

• Background: Current pain points and drivers
• Objective: Business objective/success metrics (verifiable)
• Scope: in-scope / out-of-scope (boundaries)
• Deliverables: Code/documentation/deployment/training/source code ownership etc.
• Acceptance: Acceptance standards + process + time limit + default pass conditions
• Non-Functional Requirements: Security/performance/availability/compliance/observability/compatibility (for public networks/sensitive data/external APIs, supplement minimum baseline according to Appendix P of

  references/assessment-standard.md

  )
• Data & Compliance: Data type/sensitivity level/source authorization/retention & deletion/cross-border sharing
• Dependencies & Integration: Third-party APIs/internal systems/customer-side input/account qualifications
• Stakeholders & Decisions: Decision-maker, owner, acceptance responsible person, feedback loop
• Plan & Resources: Milestones, key dates, customer cooperation items, own resource constraints
• Commercial & Contractual: Budget, payment nodes, change mechanism, maintenance scope, SLA (if any)
• Liability & Boundaries: Liability upper limit, compensation scope, confidentiality, security obligations, dispute resolution

• Historical Performance: Past delays/rework/disputes, known遗留缺陷/technical debt
• Current Cost: Support/operations/emergency input (man-days/frequency)
• Payment Collection & Credit: Outstanding payments, historical overdue, entity changes
• Change History: Number of scope drifts, presence of change orders and sign-offs, frequency of emergency task insertion
• Assets & Intellectual Property: Ownership of existing code/documentation, third-party dependencies and licenses, material authorization

• Real Deadline: Customer-stated deadline vs actual executable window
• Impact of Priority Conflict: Impact of insertion on existing projects (delay, resource preemption, quality degradation), and convert to "Priority Conflict Affordability" (A6) during scoring
• Emergency Premium: Whether rush fees are included, whether additional resources need to be mobilized
• Channel Fee: Whether "emergency channel" needs to be occupied, whether there is additional communication cost
• Quality Sacrifice Level: Which quality/functions can be sacrificed to gain time
• Acceptance Risk: Increased probability of acceptance disputes in emergency mode

• Scope Boundary, Deliverable List, Acceptance Criteria, Payment Structure, Timeline/Milestones, Key Dependencies, Data & Compliance Points, Decision/Acceptance Responsible Person

• Information Sufficiency: X/8

• If

  <=4/8

  : Default to "quick triage" and prioritize

  Pause

  (unless the user explicitly states "only for exploration, no commitments/no quotes/no schedules"); overall confidence level cannot be "High" in full assessments.

references/assessment-standard.md

1. List hit original short quotes (evidence anchors)
2. State which dimensions/conclusion tendencies it will affect (at least: confidence level reduction, entry into risk register)

Rule: Hit items must enter the "risk register", and at least affect confidence level or trigger negotiation terms (do not only treat as "complaints").

undefined

• Hit: [Tactics/Signal] - Evidence Anchor - Impact

---

references/assessment-standard.md

• Impact on upper limit of dimension scores/confidence level
• Whether it triggers the tendency of "Negotiate Before Accepting/Reject"

• [Check Item]: Pass/Fail/Insufficient - Evidence Anchor or Gap

---

• Base Total Score(/100): Only use A1-A5 (total weight=100).
• Emergency Adjustment Score: Only calculated when identified as "emergency requirement", range

  -5 ~ +15

  (formula see Appendix H of

  references/assessment-standard.md

  ).
• Emergency Total Score:

  Base Total Score + Emergency Adjustment Score

  (can indicate whether capped in the report).

• Triggered Score Capping: List item by item (from Appendix E)
• Triggered Non-Linear Decision Gates: List item by item (from Appendix E)

• Dimension Score

  : 0-5
• Contribution Score: Converted to /100 (e.g., A1 Compliance Risk:

  30 * 4/5 = 24

  )

• If Yes: Emergency Adjustment Score: (+/-)N (-5~+15) | Emergency Total Score: ZZ/100 (can note if capped) | Emergency Premium: X% | Priority Conflict Affordability: Low/Medium/High (higher = more acceptable to insert) | Quality Sacrifice Level: 0-5 (higher = worse)

• ...

• ...

undefined

Note: Emergency "channel fee/insertion cost" should be covered first through emergency premium and milestone/change/acceptance terms, rather than bypassing red lines, hard gates, and capping with "subjective score increase".

• Trigger conditions / amplification mechanism / loss type
• Early signals (observable)
• Stop-loss points (quantifiable)
• Monitoring and liability (frequency + responsible party)
• Preventive actions (contract/process/technology)

Additional Requirement: Point out at least 1-2 "interaction risks" (e.g., unclear acceptance + large final payment + extremely short timeline will directly turn delays into bad debt/disputes).

• Risk Statement (no abstract words)
• Impact (schedule/cost/quality/legal/reputation)
• Probability (1-5) and Impact Level (1-5), used for ranking (not included in total score)
• Trigger Conditions & Early Signals
• Prevention/Mitigation (contract/process/technology)
• Stop-loss/Exit Conditions (Kill Criteria)
• Risk Ownership (Who currently bears it? How to transfer/share?)
• Risk Responsible Person/Party (Who monitors, who acts)
• Evidence/Gap/Conflict (including hit pitfall signals/conflicts)

undefined

• Accept
• Negotiate Before Accepting (Must Have Condition List)
• Reject
• Pause (Assess After Supplementing, Reject Commitment Before Supplementing)

Pause

• Red line check shows

  ⚠️ Insufficient Information to Supplement

  , and the gap determines whether the red line is triggered;
• Insufficient information sufficiency (<=4/8) and gaps are concentrated in acceptance/payment/scope/data compliance/key dependencies;
• Conflict items cannot be resolved with existing materials (Appendix I).

references/assessment-standard.md

Tip: If legal term disputes arise regarding "liability/compensation/IP/data processing/security obligations", it is recommended to involve legal counsel for review (this Skill provides a risk framework and does not replace legal advice).

• Scope Convergence and Freeze Point (When to freeze, how to charge for changes)
• Milestone and Acceptance Rhythm (Acceptance window and default pass)
• Customer-Side Dependency Delivery List (Who/When/Format)
• Quality and Security Bottom Line (Minimum observability/backup/permissions etc.)
• Stop-Loss Triggers (Overdue payment, excessive changes, unavailable dependencies etc.)

• Default to outputting ranges for

  best/base/worst

  (not single points).
• Each range must be bound to: Key assumptions (≤6 items) + top 3 mandatory negotiation terms + verification plan (Top 3-6).
• If information sufficiency < 6/8 or key hard gates/conflicts/capping are triggered: Clearly write

  ROM For Exploration Only, Not For Locking Quotes/Schedules

  .

references/assessment-standard.md

• Best/worst scenarios are provided;
• Key assumptions ≥ 3 items;
• User requests "quote/schedule locking now", but information is insufficient or conflicts are unresolved.

undefined

• Objective: ...
• Deliverables: POC/Spike/Sample Data Verification Report + Clear Scope Boundary + Acceptance Draft + ROM Range Convergence
• Acceptance Criteria: ... (verifiable)
• Timeline: ... (range) | Cost/Billing Method: ...
• Key Stop-Loss Point: ... (If not met, can terminate/do not enter Phase 1)

• Objective: ...
• Deliverables: ... (per frozen scope)
• Milestones and Payment: Advance payment/milestone payment/final payment (final payment ≤30%) + acceptance window + default pass for overdue

---

• Associated dimension/risk item
• Why it will change the conclusion (1 sentence)

references/assessment-standard.md

• Hit Items: ... (Evidence Anchor)
• Impact: ...

• Assumption 1: ... (How it will affect conclusion/score/terms if not valid)
• Assumption 2: ...

1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

• Condition ... (Mapped to: Failure Path/Risk Item)
• ...

• Scope and Freeze: ...
• Milestones and Acceptance: ...
• Dependencies and Liability: ...
• Technical Bottom Line: ...
• Stop-Loss Triggers: ...

1. ...

---

1. Total Score Covers Up Red Lines: Always execute Phase 1 + Appendix E non-linear gates
2. High Score With Missing Evidence: Execute Score Capping + low confidence level + questions
3. Only List Risks, No Actions: Each risk must be mapped to contract/process/technical controls
4. Inconsistent Conclusions: Conclusions must be consistent with gates, payment, acceptance, liability/risk ownership
5. Ignore Conflicts/Pitfall Signals: Hit items in Phase 0.25/0.5 must be reflected in scoring, confidence level, and conclusions
6. Fabricate Citations: Must use user's original text, if not found write

   [No Original Text Evidence Found]

7. Missed Assessment of Emergency Scenarios: Identified emergency requirement but did not execute emergency scoring logic
8. No Horizontal Analysis in Multi-requirement Comparison: Only assessed individually, no dimension comparison
9. False Precision in Quotes/Schedules: Provide single-point quotes/schedule locking with insufficient information; should output ROM range + assumptions + verification plan
10. Best/Worst Without Verification Measures: Scenario deduction without verification plan, leading to unactionable suggestions
11. No Work Split for High Uncertainty: Still commit to full delivery with many key assumptions/insufficient information; should output phased delivery suggestion of Phase 0→Phase 1 (see 10.6)
12. Security/Operations Left Blank: Did not supplement minimum security/operations baseline for public network/sensitive data scenarios, leading to launch accidents or liability out of control (Appendix P)

• User sends PRD/meeting minutes/chat records/emails
• User asks "Can we accept this requirement/should we initiate it/what are the risks/should we renew/should we do the modification"
• User says "Help me compare A and B"/"Which is better"/"Prioritization"
• User says "How was that previous project"/"Reference for similar projects"
• User says "Urgent"/"Emergency"/"Rush"/"Need it tomorrow"
• User requests "lock quotes/lock schedules/provide man-days" (need ROM range + assumptions + verification plan, split work if necessary)
• User mentions "large model/LLM/RAG/fine-tuning/Agent/generative", hoping to assess performance metrics, data authorization, cost and delivery risks
• When input is very short: Default to quick triage first, then suggest supplementing information to enter full assessment

• "Help me see if we can accept this requirement"
• "What are the risks of this project"
• "Assess this PRD"
• "Is this outsourcing requirement reliable"
• "Can we initiate this project"
• "Help me compare these two requirements"
• "Which has higher priority"
• "How was that previous e-commerce project"
• "This is urgent, need it tomorrow"

1. Contract to Be Signed Later: User says "Do it first, sign the contract later". Expected: Hit pitfall signal; conclusion at most

   Negotiate Before Accepting

   or

   Pause

   ; must provide conditions such as "sign first/pay first/written confirmation".
2. Payment on Result + Unclear Acceptance: Expected: Trigger hard gate; conclusion cannot be

   Accept

   ; risk register and negotiation terms must cover payment and acceptance.
3. Emergency Insertion: User says "Launch tomorrow/need it today/insert this task". Expected: Identify emergency; output emergency adjustment score; clearly state insertion impact and emergency premium/channel fee/sacrifice items.
4. Illegal Use: User explicitly describes gray market/illegal use. Expected: Red line hit ⇒

   Reject

   , skip full scoring.
5. Multi-requirement Mixing With Unclear Boundaries: User mixes A/B/C in one paragraph with unclear boundaries. Expected: First request user to split into paragraphs or mark boundaries; prohibit "brainstorming boundaries" before scoring and ranking.
6. Historical Inquiry Without Materials: User asks "How did that previous project turn out". Expected: Mark

   [Historical Materials Missing, Cannot Conduct Factual Comparison]

   , only provide reusable patterns and question lists.
7. Information Sufficiency <=4/8: Expected: Default to prioritizing

   Pause (Reject Commitment Before Supplementing)

   , and output minimum supplementary information set (≤10 questions).
8. Request Total Score Without Evidence: User says "Give total score first, no citations". Expected: Reject fabrication, request materials or switch to quick triage and reduce confidence level.
9. Citation Restricted (No Pasting of Original Text): User says "Materials cannot be forwarded/do not quote original text". Expected: Use

   [Paraphrase]

   as evidence anchor according to Appendix M of

   references/assessment-standard.md

   , and reduce confidence level to no higher than "Medium"; prioritize

   Pause

   if key fields are missing.
10. Strong Commitment to AI/LLM Performance: User says "100% accuracy/no errors/performance must be like ChatGPT", but does not provide evaluation dataset or acceptance criteria. Expected: Enable Appendix O; conclusion at most

    Negotiate Before Accepting

    or

    Pause

    ; must provide "evaluation dataset/metrics/acceptance criteria + disclaimer + verification plan (POC)".
11. Lock Quotes/Schedules With Insufficient Information: User requests "Finalize quotes/schedules today", but information sufficiency < 6/8 or many key assumptions. Expected: Prohibit single-point commitment; output ROM range + key assumptions + verification plan, and suggest phased delivery (10.6).
12. Public Network/Sensitive Data Without Security/Operations Discussion: User hopes to launch quickly and involves login/permissions/personal information. Expected: Supplement minimum security/operations baseline according to Appendix P; gaps enter risk register and negotiation terms;

    Pause

    conclusion if necessary.
13. Insist on "Full Version First" But Refuse to Supplement Information: User says "Give full report first/fill all tables first, ask questions later", and information sufficiency <= 4/8 or key fields such as red line/payment/acceptance/scope are missing. Expected: Still deliver 1st round usable version according to

    0.121

    , and lock conclusion to

    Pause

    or at most

    Negotiate Before Accepting

    ; clearly state the boundary "Reject Commitment/Quote/Schedule Locking Before Information Is Supplemented".