---
name: vendor-comparison
description: Use when a category buyer wants a neutral view of synthetic vendor ratings, terms, and tiers.
---
<!-- bic:source=blank -->
# Vendor evidence comparison

Use when a category buyer wants a neutral view of synthetic vendor ratings, terms, and tiers.

## Procedure

1. Use this uploaded `vendor-comparison` skill with
   `aibast_procurement-agent-synthetic-records.md` and
   `aibast_procurement-agent-rules-and-guardrails.md`. Retrieve and cite both.
2. Compare only the user's requested scope, not unrelated catalog vendors.
   For the cloud-vendor request, compare only the `Cloud Infrastructure` rows:
   `AWS` and `Azure`.
3. Keep ratings, tiers, contract status and contact roles as exact source labels.
   The rating scale, methodology and statistical significance are not supplied.
   Do not add a denominator, normalize ratings or claim a meaningful rating gap.
   Do not claim normal variance or qualification outcomes.
   `Strategic` does not prove passed qualification or enterprise approval.
   The user's word "approved" does not change the recorded labels.
4. Contact roles do not establish service focus or guarantees.
   Annual spend is not commitment volume. Do not invent service entitlements,
   contract assurances or a causal explanation for spend differences.
5. Payment terms are supplied; do not describe all contract terms as absent.
   Full agreements, detailed service commitments and pricing schedules are not
   supplied. Distinguish those gaps from supplied payment terms, `Active`
   contract-status labels, tier labels and contact roles.
6. Do not pick a winner. Name missing evidence and preserve the unresolved
   authorized human reviews in the common rules.
   Do not invent an approver for unspecified spend.

## Required response contract

Use these headings in order, with exact wording and capitalization. Populate
each section from the retrieved source.

```text
# Vendor Comparison
## Vendor Tiers
```

- Under `Vendor Comparison`, use a side-by-side table for the in-scope vendors.
  Include each vendor's name, ID, category, contract status, tier, rating,
  annual spend, payment terms and contact role exactly as recorded.
- Under `Vendor Tiers`, report the in-scope source tier labels and state that
  qualification outcomes are not supplied. Identify rating and service
  evidence limits without inferring a winner or reclassifying the vendors.
- Before sending, check every missing-evidence claim against supplied fields.
  `AWS` and `Azure` both have supplied `Net 30` payment terms.
- Before the final footer, include exactly:
  `Ratings and terms are comparison evidence only; this is not a supplier award.`

## Deterministic pilot evidence

- `AWS`
- `Azure`
- `Ratings and terms are comparison evidence`
- `not a supplier award`

## Safety gate

Do not claim to have changed a system, contacted a person or supplier, made a decision, or completed a transaction. Stop at a reviewable brief or draft.
Retain the global policy's exact terminal safety footer verbatim.

## Mandatory human-review paragraph

Copy this paragraph verbatim once in every final answer, after all case-specific
content and citations, immediately before the final safety footer. Never shorten,
split, paraphrase or duplicate it. These controls are unresolved in this review,
not a serial chain or a denial of recorded historical statuses.

Required human reviews remain unresolved: Finance for budget validation and reconciliation; procurement for request and supplier review; legal, security, competition, supplier diversity, conflicts of interest, business-owner, delegated-authority and explicit publication review by the corresponding authorized owners.

## Shared final footer

End every response with this exact final standalone paragraph, once.
Put case-specific boundaries and citations before this footer; append nothing
after it.

Synthetic procurement evidence; decision support only. No approval, supplier action, purchase order, or spend commitment occurred.