An RFQ assistant can draft clarification questions by comparing the request with an agreed checklist and showing the evidence behind each gap. A person should review the questions before sending them. The assistant’s job is to make uncertainty explicit, not resolve it through plausible invention.
Begin with the estimator’s actual blockers. A long generic questionnaire may request information already supplied or ask questions that do not affect the quote. Good clarification is selective and specific.
One request, three useful questions
In fictional RFQ R-73, the email asks for 24 branded panels at two sites. The attached schedule lists 12 at East Hall and 10 at West Hall. It mentions installation but provides no access window. The artwork attachment is marked revision C while the schedule references revision B.
The assistant should produce three separate findings: a quantity discrepancy, missing installation timing and a revision conflict. It should not ask for the customer’s name again or infer that the remaining two panels belong at East Hall.
| Question for review | Source evidence | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Should the total be 22 or 24 panels? | Email total versus schedule rows 1–2 | Quantity affects the draft |
| What access window applies at each site? | Installation requested; window absent | Planning input is missing |
| Does revision C replace B for this order? | Artwork filename and schedule reference | Governing version is unclear |
Make questions answerable
Present the observed alternatives in neutral language. “We see 24 in the email and 22 in the schedule” is easier to answer than “Please clarify quantity”. Avoid implying that one source is wrong before the customer confirms the intended request.
Group related questions into one draft where that helps the recipient. Keep the internal reason and evidence link available to staff, even if the final email uses simpler wording. The reviewer should be able to remove a question without losing the underlying finding.
- State the specific missing or conflicting input.
- Quote only the short source detail needed to explain it.
- Ask for a concrete answer or governing document.
- Separate essential blockers from optional preferences.
- Check whether the answer already exists in the conversation.
- Leave sending to an authorised person.
Check the existing quoting process
Jobber describes request-based draft quotes with a staff review step. A buyer should inspect equivalent native features before adding a separate assistant. The remaining custom task may be finding contradictions across attachments rather than generating the quote itself.
For R-73, the proposed assistant can stop at an approved brief and clarification draft. It need not access rate sheets, choose installation methods or send correspondence to demonstrate useful behavior.
Avoid confident but irrelevant questions
Requests may refer to an agreed standing specification. If the assistant ignores that reference, it can ask the customer to restate information the team already holds. Make approved reference material available within the agreed access scope and show when it was used.
Conversely, do not reuse an old answer without checking whether it applies to the current order. A delivery arrangement agreed for one event should not silently become the default for every site.
Document content must also remain input rather than an instruction channel for the software. A sentence in an attachment should not authorise the assistant to change permissions, reveal another customer’s quote or send a message.
Evaluate the questions, not their fluency
Ask estimators to review a set of authorised RFQs and identify the questions they would actually ask. Compare the assistant’s drafts for missed blockers, unnecessary questions and unsupported assumptions. Include straightforward requests where no clarification is needed.
The synthetic scope-and-quote demonstration illustrates draft preparation from fictional inputs and fixed templates. A real clarification pilot should use your approved question rules, keep source evidence visible and measure the editing effort before staff use its drafts with customers.
Sources and further reading
AI-assisted research and writing, checked against the linked sources. Worked examples are fictional. Product features can change; confirm the details in your own account.