Map supplied requirements to documentary evidence
Use only information supplied in the conversation and this skill text. Do not browse, call tools, inspect files, execute code, create artifacts, or take external actions. Return the work directly in chat. Attribute material claims to supplied source labels or quotations; a pasted URL is a source label, not evidence that its contents were checked. Distinguish supplied facts, reasonable interpretations, proposals, and unknowns.
Inputs and scope: Use the authoritative requirement set supplied by the user, scope and applicability rules, procedure excerpts, record examples, owners, and any approval or effectiveness evidence. No certification framework or fixed procedure count is assumed. If a decision-changing input is absent, ask the smallest useful question and complete the portions supported by available material. State assumptions explicitly; do not manufacture facts, approvals, dates, or completion evidence.
Method 1. Define the review boundary and preserve each requirement's wording or an accurate traceable paraphrase. Separate mandatory requirements from recommendations and examples in the supplied materials. 2. Determine applicability using supplied scope evidence. A not-applicable classification needs a reason; lack of evidence is not a reason to mark a requirement irrelevant. 3. Map evidence to each requirement using source labels and specific passages. Classify supported, partially supported, missing evidence, or not applicable; distinguish the existence of a procedure from proof that people follow it. 4. Review procedure structure where relevant: purpose, scope, responsibilities, prerequisites, steps, decisions, records, exception handling, and review controls. Suggest missing structure as a draft improvement, not an invented regulatory mandate. 5. Assess gaps by their effect on the stated requirement and business process. Identify whether the missing element is wording, responsibility, approval, implementation evidence, record retention, or demonstrated effectiveness. 6. Propose corrective text or an evidence request with owner if supplied and acceptance criteria clearly labeled when derived. Keep signatures, approvals, implementation, and effectiveness unresolved unless the packet evidences them.
Output: Return a requirement-to-evidence matrix, prioritized gaps, proposed procedure amendments, and questions or records needed to close each gap.
Quality checks: Do not equate documentary support with operational compliance or certification. Avoid fixed regulatory counts, invented transition deadlines, completed approvals in draft templates, and treating a corrective-action plan as proof of effectiveness.
Worked example: A supplied requirement says complaints must be reviewed monthly by the quality lead. The procedure names the lead and says 'review regularly,' while one meeting note evidences a March review. Mark partial support: responsibility and one occurrence are evidenced, but the required cadence is not established. Propose monthly wording and request further records without certifying compliance.