how to fix proposal refresh error competitor comparison table cites r

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the competitor comparison table by acting on the exact message first: remove the retired product row from the comparison table, replace it with the current competing product and its sourced claims, date the table, and regenerate the proposal. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

proposal refresh error competitor comparison table cites retired product

Use this when

• The operation in the competitor comparison table fails with this exact message: proposal refresh error competitor comparison table cites retired product.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A proposal, quote or send is blocked until this item completes.

Not for this skill when

• The message is a permission or outage notice from the platform. Resolve that first, then return here if this error remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with its output. That is a quality review, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure with the smallest scope that still shows it in the competitor comparison table, and copy the full message plus the proposal, quote or account involved into the run notes. Verify: the error is reproduced on demand with a named item, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this error: remove the retired product row from the comparison table, replace it with the current competing product and its sourced claims, date the table, and regenerate the proposal. Verify: the table names only products currently sold and each claim matches its cited source.
3. Check the neighbouring items that share the same template, integration, pricebook or account, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Compare the result against the source system in the competitor comparison table so a silent partial success is caught before sign off. Verify: counts and key values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
5. Rerun the original operation in the competitor comparison table on the previously failing scope, watching for the same message rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original message does not appear.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the item so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the error, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Why it happens

the comparison table was copied forward from an old proposal and never rechecked, so it kept citing a product the competitor no longer sells.

Variant phrasings

proposal refresh error competitor comparison table cites retired product

The verbatim form searchers paste from the terminal or console. Treat it identically: same fix, same single item proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix: how to fix proposal refresh error competitor comparison table cites retired product fails

The how-to phrasing for the same failure in the competitor comparison table. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Troubleshooting this failure in the competitor comparison table

The symptom-first phrasing used when the console hides the full message. Surface the full message first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Compatibility: the competitor comparison table at current versions, plus the platform API or console the query names; no extra tooling beyond the source system access needed to verify counts.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_ha2IBCXd57KcJsfP8OeLeQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_ha2IBCXd57KcJsfP8OeLeQ

Thread query: how to fix proposal refresh error competitor comparison table cites retired product fails

TL;DR: Fix this in the competitor comparison table by acting on the exact message first: remove the retired product row from the comparison table, replace it with the current competing product and its sourced claims, date the table, and regenerate the proposal. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the proposal generator by acting on the exact message first: require every competitor pricing claim in the proposal to carry a source and a date from the research record, remove claims that have neither, and mark dated claims with their as-of date in the text. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

Proposal comparison error competitor pricing claim unverified

Use this when

• The operation in the proposal generator fails with this exact message: Proposal comparison error competitor pricing claim unverified.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A call, review or send is blocked until this item completes.

Not for this skill when

• The message is a permission or outage notice from the platform. Resolve that first, then return here if this error remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with its output. That is a quality review, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure with the smallest scope that still shows it in the proposal generator, and copy the full message plus the account, contact, quote or meeting involved into the run notes. Verify: the error is reproduced on demand with a named item, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this error: require every competitor pricing claim in the proposal to carry a source and a date from the research record, remove claims that have neither, and mark dated claims with their as-of date in the text. Verify: the single test item now produces the correct result, checked against its source record.
3. Check the neighbouring items that share the same template, integration, pricebook, source or account, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Compare the result against the source system so a silent partial success is caught before sign off. Verify: counts and key values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
5. Rerun the original operation in the proposal generator on the previously failing scope, watching for the same message rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original message does not appear.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the item so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the error, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Why it happens

A battlecard figure was copied into the proposal with no source, and battlecard numbers age quickly, so the claim could not be defended on the call.

Variant phrasings

Proposal comparison error competitor pricing claim unverified

The verbatim form searchers paste from the terminal or console. Treat it identically: same fix, same single item proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix: proposal comparison error competitor pricing claim unverified failure

The how-to phrasing for the same failure in the proposal generator. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Troubleshooting this failure in the proposal generator

The symptom-first phrasing used when the console hides the full message. Surface the full message first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Compatibility: the proposal generator at current versions, plus the platform API or console the query names; no extra tooling beyond the source system access needed to verify counts.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_XmZZ47czpG8zPcOwk7CBcw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_XmZZ47czpG8zPcOwk7CBcw

Thread query: proposal comparison error competitor pricing claim unverified failure

TL;DR: Fix this in the proposal generator by acting on the exact message first: require every competitor pricing claim in the proposal to carry a source and a date from the research record, remove claims that have neither, and mark dated claims with their as-of date in the text. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the proposal agent run by acting on the exact message first: fingerprint each generated pricing table by a hash of its inputs, stop regeneration when the hash repeats after a template edit that does not affect pricing inputs, and surface the unchanged inputs to a human instead of looping. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

proposal agent loop regenerating the same pricing table after each template edit

Use this when

• The operation in the proposal agent run fails with this exact message: proposal agent loop regenerating the same pricing table after each template edit.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A proposal, quote or send is blocked until this item completes.

Not for this skill when

• The message is a permission or outage notice from the platform. Resolve that first, then return here if this error remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with its output. That is a quality review, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure with the smallest scope that still shows it in the proposal agent run, and copy the full message plus the proposal, quote or account involved into the run notes. Verify: the error is reproduced on demand with a named item, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this error: fingerprint each generated pricing table by a hash of its inputs, stop regeneration when the hash repeats after a template edit that does not affect pricing inputs, and surface the unchanged inputs to a human instead of looping. Verify: the run stops after one repeated hash and reports which inputs did not change.
3. Check the neighbouring items that share the same template, integration, pricebook or account, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Compare the result against the source system in the proposal agent run so a silent partial success is caught before sign off. Verify: counts and key values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
5. Rerun the original operation in the proposal agent run on the previously failing scope, watching for the same message rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original message does not appear.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the item so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the error, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Why it happens

the agent treated each regenerated table as new work because nothing compared outputs, so identical inputs produced an endless regeneration cycle.

Variant phrasings

proposal agent loop regenerating the same pricing table after each template edit

The verbatim form searchers paste from the terminal or console. Treat it identically: same fix, same single item proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix: proposal agent loop regenerating the same pricing table after each template edit

The how-to phrasing for the same failure in the proposal agent run. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Troubleshooting this failure in the proposal agent run

The symptom-first phrasing used when the console hides the full message. Surface the full message first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Compatibility: the proposal agent run at current versions, plus the platform API or console the query names; no extra tooling beyond the source system access needed to verify counts.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst8NRwWya3a6S2RoRmywAJw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst8NRwWya3a6S2RoRmywAJw

Thread query: proposal agent loop regenerating the same pricing table after each template edit

TL;DR: Fix this in the proposal agent run by acting on the exact message first: fingerprint each generated pricing table by a hash of its inputs, stop regeneration when the hash repeats after a template edit that does not affect pricing inputs, and surface the unchanged inputs to a human instead of looping. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.