Assess an existing proposal or prepare a new draft. Keep the evidence and the next step clear.
Public or non-confidential, redacted uploads only. No real personal, customer, student or confidential bank data, trade secrets or financial account details. Rules-based report scoring is available for solar PV and general proposal readiness. No AI service is connected; scores do not establish compliance or lending approval.
START AT HOME
Choose the work you want to do
ASSESS AN EXISTING PROPOSAL
Proposal Alignment Assessment
Choose Upload a proposal, select a public, non-confidential or safely redacted PDF and confirm its privacy acknowledgement. The workspace is named from the file automatically. Check the extracted text, confirm requirements and review the findings. Use My proposals to return to a saved project. The title describes the review purpose; the tool does not produce a validated alignment score.
Follow guided questions about a fictional project, generate a deterministic text draft, then review and download it. This browser-session draft is separate from saved assessment projects.
Check each criterion, its explanation and the suggested improvement. Prepare a comment, a management recommendation or a source-linked section revision.
The Tutorial opens in a separate tab from your workspace. Return to that workspace tab to keep working with unsaved edits. Home and purpose links here open the workspace in this tab; they do not transfer work from another tab.
DRAFT A PROPOSAL
From fictional facts to a reviewable draft
Start from Home → Draft a Proposal. This path does not require an uploaded PDF or a saved assessment project.
Step 1 · Project and request. Start with the facts you know about a fictional project and the request. Use synthetic information only.
Step 2 · Plan and support. Add your plan and evidence. Keep missing facts and unverified evidence clearly marked; do not invent supporting evidence.
Step 3 · Review and download. Choose Create proposal draft to build your first draft. The same inputs produce a deterministic template. No AI service is called, no evidence is verified and no taxonomy alignment is established.
Review and edit. Use Editable wording to check every claim, assumption and evidence-needed placeholder. Source and review context stays read-only. Choose Edit proposal facts to revisit your inputs. A qualified human must review the proposal before anyone relies on it.
Copy or download your work. Choose Copy text or Download text before closing or refreshing the tab. The draft is session-only: it is not saved to the database, a project or an assessment history. Refreshing or closing the tab loses this work.
A draft is not source evidence. Copying or downloading does not submit a proposal or send it to a bank. To assess a proposal later, prepare a searchable synthetic PDF and upload it through Proposal Alignment Assessment. Its wording alone cannot demonstrate compliance.
LEARN WITH FICTIONAL DATA
Try the solar sample
Both files are synthetic practice documents. They do not describe an approved or verified project.
Create a practice project. From Home, choose Upload a proposal. Download v1 and upload it after confirming the document and storage acknowledgement. Its filename becomes the project name.
Check the pages. Choose View extracted text. Compare the text with Download original if anything looks incomplete.
Save the review basis. In Requirements, choose Solar photovoltaic (PV). Leave bank policy unselected or deliberately choose the synthetic demonstration checklist. Keep safeguards unconfirmed unless their applicability and version are established.
Run and inspect. In Findings, run an assessment. Open a candidate citation and inspect mandatory gates. Outside-scope gate topics are excluded from the main gate count. Missing or uncertain text can still count as a located topic.
Practice improving. Read Why this result and How to improve. Use a cited passage to create a section draft. Keep unsupported items as evidence-needed placeholders, then save the section revision. A memo cannot improve factual coverage.
Compare versions. Upload v2 using Add as → New version of the v1 document, then run a new assessment. Use Review tools → Compare to inspect changes. More mentions do not establish compliance.
BEFORE YOU UPLOAD
Use a searchable PDF
PDF only, up to 2 MiB and 20 pages. Every upload needs explicit document and storage confirmation. Originals and extracted text remain in your private account storage; self-service deletion is not available in this pilot. Upload only material you are authorized to store.
Scanned, image-only and password-protected PDFs are not supported. No OCR or AI analysis runs.
The viewer shows extracted text, not a visual rendering. Images, tables, formatting, unusual wording and non-English text can be missed or misread.
Check important passages against the downloaded original. Uploaded originals stay read-only.
Choose New document for a separate source or New version of… to continue an existing PDF’s version history.
UNDERSTAND YOUR SCORES
Report assessment, explained
The document-evidence rubric awards 25 points for each of four reporting checks per criterion: a relevant response, a specific detail, an identifiable supporting record, and a delivery or management detail. These checks assess the submitted text; they do not establish that a taxonomy requirement is met.
The overall score is the mean across the selected, supported reporting criteria. Missing evidence contributes zero; if all criteria lack evidence, no overall score is issued. Other activities use general proposal-readiness checks, not solar taxonomy checks.
Uncertain, adverse or mixed-scope findings are capped at 50. Planned or negated details do not earn completed-detail points.
Evidence coverage is separate: it shows how many criteria have a candidate passage. Shared World Bank, ADB and IFC evidence topics count once in the score and coverage; each selected framework retains its source-specific findings. Selecting more frameworks cannot improve a score by duplicating the same evidence.
Tap a criterion bar to inspect its awarded points, exact pages and next actions. Download assessment includes the saved rubric and source context.
Compare uses saved runs. Score changes are comparable only when the rubric, assessment engine and review basis match. Rewording alone does not verify a new fact.
This is MekongGreen’s preliminary reporting rubric, not an official bank or regulatory score. It has not been independently validated. Supplied bank criteria are user-entered and unverified. World Bank, ADB and IFC topic checks are not full framework assessments; mandatory gates remain open.
STEP 2 → REQUIREMENTS
Confirm what applies
Activity: choose bounded solar-PV taxonomy checks or general proposal-readiness checks for other activities. Other activities do not receive a taxonomy eligibility conclusion; an unconfirmed activity leaves applicable topics unresolved.
Bank policy: no actual bank policy is loaded automatically. Choose the fictional demonstration policy, or Supply a bank checklist and enter up to 12 criteria. Each requires wording, a source title, version, page or section, and one to six literal search phrases. User-entered sources are unverified; matches cannot establish financing eligibility.
Safeguards: a World Bank, ADB or IFC selection does not prove applicability. Select reference frameworks to include descriptive evidence-topic checks. A qualified reviewer must confirm the framework, version and project requirements.
Record uncertainty in the applicability note and save the basis before rerunning. Each saved run keeps its own selections and rules.
Source limits
Requirements & sources shows source links and printed-page references. The bounded taxonomy rules do not resolve the main-text/annex interpretation issue or the provisional remediation pathway. The full official PDF and physical page offsets have not been verified; qualified source review remains necessary.
UNDERSTAND THE RESULT
Read each criterion in context
Criterion result: read the individual result and the requirement being considered.
Why this result: check the explanation against candidate source passages, uncertainty and the saved review basis.
How to improve: identify the missing evidence or human review needed, then open the citation to check the original source context.
Candidate coverage counts assessed topics with located passages, including wording that says evidence is missing or uncertain. It is not evidence completeness, a green score, a validated alignment score, a compliance percentage or an approval.
Candidate evidence
Potentially relevant wording was located. Authenticity, project linkage, completeness and adequacy still need checking.
Evidence missing
No suitable passage was found in the active source PDFs. This does not prove noncompliance; wording or extraction may have missed it.
Needs human review
Scope, uncertainty, potentially conflicting wording or a substantive question needs interpretation.
Not assessed / Outside scope
The selected rules did not assess that question. It is not a pass. Some such topics are excluded from the coverage denominator.
Mandatory gates remain unresolved until qualified review. A larger candidate count cannot clear them. The workspace makes no overall taxonomy alignment, provisional-status, compliance or lending decision.
Expand Requirement when you need the detail. Review limitations & pinned inputs retains the run’s full limitations and source versions.
FROM FINDINGS TO REVIEW OUTPUTS
Prepare a comment or recommendation
Comment to a loan seeker
Choose Draft applicant comment on a finding to create an editable comment that explains the findings and asks for missing evidence or clarification. Verify the wording and supporting citations before using it.
Recommendation to management
Choose Draft management summary for a saved run to create an editable review recommendation that carries the evidence gaps and unresolved questions forward. It is not an approval or a validated alignment conclusion.
Both actions create browser-only text for human review. They never send externally, notify a recipient or submit anything to a bank.
Edit the proposed message, then copy or download it. These outputs are session-only and are not saved to the database or assessment history; export before refreshing or closing the tab.
Each output includes immutable provenance from its source assessment. Copy and download keep that provenance and the review limitations with the editable message; editing the message does not change the underlying run or sources.
Check the source assessment and every consequential claim. Candidate coverage is not a validated alignment score, and a drafted recommendation cannot resolve mandatory gates.
SOURCE-PRESERVING SECTION DRAFTS
Improve, then reassess
This assessment tool creates a saved, source-linked section revision. It is separate from the session-only Draft a Proposal path.
Select a saved assessment and an original PDF pinned to that run, or choose Use passage for a section draft from a citation.
Use an exact passage from the extracted page. Create section draft keeps the original text and adds a deterministic template with marked evidence placeholders. It is not AI rewriting.
Edit the proposed section. Add only supported facts; leave unverified claims marked as evidence needed.
Save section revision creates a separate text memo. It does not edit the PDF and is excluded from evidence matching and coverage.
To redraft, select a source passage and create another draft. Saved revisions are read-only. A new genuine source PDF or PDF version is needed to add source evidence.
Reassess after changing inputs. A wording change alone does not establish a new fact or resolve a gate.
REVIEW TOOLS → COMPARE
Keep the history clear
Upload shows active versions. Turn on Show all versions to inspect earlier originals and saved revisions.
Each assessment pins exact document versions, the saved review basis and the rule version. Old runs remain unchanged.
“This run uses earlier inputs” means the current documents or review basis differ. Run a new assessment for current inputs.
Compare requires two saved runs. Choose a baseline and a comparison run, inspect each changed status, then open the supporting source.
A change in rules or review basis makes outcomes not directly comparable. Different statuses or better wording do not prove improved compliance.
WHEN SOMETHING GETS IN THE WAY
Help & troubleshooting
My PDF will not upload
Check that it is a searchable, unencrypted PDF within the 2 MiB and 20-page limits, then confirm the document and storage acknowledgement. For scanned pages, prepare a searchable synthetic source outside this workspace. If uploads are unavailable in this environment, you can still review saved documents.
The extracted text looks wrong
Download the original to check layout, tables and images. Do not rely on incomplete text. Prepare a cleaner searchable PDF and upload it as a new version, then reassess. The viewer cannot repair extraction or perform OCR.
A save or upload was interrupted
Do not assume it succeeded. Retry same operation resends the original request so it can be safely confirmed. If you edited afterward, the workspace asks before discarding those newer edits. Reload saved data checks what was saved and warns before leaving unsaved work.
Uploads paused after repeated interruptions
A safety limit allows up to three unresolved upload attempts. Retry the original request first when available. A stale-revision failure may require the workspace owner to reconcile the retained upload. There is no automatic deletion or recovery screen for these files.
I see a sign-in or access message
Private project data is cleared from the screen when access is lost. Use Sign in with ChatGPT and then check access again. Access settings remains in the earlier workspace; the tutorial does not change permissions.
I cannot create or edit a source-linked section draft
Create an assessment first. Choose an original PDF pinned to that run, then use an exact source excerpt of at least 10 characters. Revision memos are not factual draft sources. A saved revision is read-only; create a new source-linked draft to revise again. To write a new proposal without an assessment, use Home → Draft a Proposal.
Why did my coverage not improve?
Drafts and edited section memos are deliberately excluded from evidence matching. Upload a supporting source PDF or a new source-document version when you have new synthetic evidence, then reassess. Counts may change without resolving any compliance question.
How do I keep my unsaved changes?
Save supported assessment forms before changing screens. Internal navigation and browser Back ask before discarding unsaved edits; leaving during a save is blocked. Open Tutorial in its separate tab, then switch back to the original workspace tab when ready. For session-only proposals, comments and recommendations, copy or download the text before refreshing or closing the tab.
Where is my proposal or review message after a refresh?
Draft a Proposal, Draft applicant comment and Draft management summary keep their editable work in the current browser session only. There is no database copy to restore after refreshing or closing the tab. Keep a downloaded or copied export. Saved assessment projects and source-linked section revisions are separate.
Does a management recommendation approve the project?
No. It is editable preparation text for human review, not a lending decision or validated alignment score. Copy and download include immutable source provenance and limitations. Nothing is sent to management or a loan seeker by these actions.