Riftur

Close the Gap, Gain the Edge

Evaluate proposals against government and commercial solicitations.

Trusted by teams shipping proposals every week

Compliance

•

Capture

•

Proposal

Start an analysis

PDF / DOCX

Upload a government or commercial solicitation + draft proposal. Riftur will evaluate fit, flag gaps, and surface improvements.

Solicitation Documents

Click to upload

or drag and drop

PDF, DOCX

Draft Proposal

Click to upload

or drag and drop

PDF, DOCX

Documents are only used to run this analysis. They are not used to train models. Files are encrypted in transit and deleted immediately after processing.

See how Riftur works in under a minute.

Upload government and commercial solicitations with draft proposals.

Review proposal evaluation results, gaps, and recommendations.

Export the gap analysis to Excel.

Supercharge proposal evaluation for government and commercial solicitations.

Requirement Coverage

Identify missing “shall” requirements, formatting constraints, and submission rules.

Gap Analysis

Evaluate your proposal against government or commercial solicitation requirements and surface what is missing.

Actionable Fixes

Generate edits and recommendations you can paste directly into your narrative.

Secure uploads and private analysis for every document.

No Document Retention

Uploaded files are deleted immediately after processing and are not retained on our systems.

No AI Model Training

Uploaded documents are not used to train or improve our AI models or third-party models.

Encryption in Transit

Uploads are encrypted in transit to help protect files during submission.

Examples of How Real Teams Use Riftur

Government Proposals

Use Riftur across every stage of proposal development, from early drafts to final submission, to ensure your content fully meets solicitation requirements and closes gaps before evaluation. Compare draft sections against instructions (Section L), evaluation criteria (Section M), compliance matrices, statements of work, and more to surface missing elements and strengthen your proposal. Riftur supports a wide range of government documents, including but not limited to white papers, full proposals, RFP/RFQ responses, solicitations, technical volumes, management volumes, and capability statements.

Draft Document

Reference Criteria

Output Analysis

The comparison maps the white_paper.pdf draft against the explicit structural, content, and formatting requirements defined in WPReqs.pdf for the Provably Secure System Assessment Event White Paper. Each requirement area is treated as a discrete evaluation dimension. The analysis identifies fully satisfied requirements, partial coverage, and compliance gaps, distinguishing mandatory content elements from mandatory formatting constraints. Risks focus on evaluability, compliance rejection, and ambiguity around implicit assumptions. Resulting tables resemble standard proposal compliance matrices and risk registers to support targeted remediation prior to submission.

White Paper Requirement Compliance Matrix

Requirement Area	Reference Criteria (WPReqs.pdf)	Draft Coverage (white_paper.pdf)	Coverage Status
Title Page – Required Fields	Title page must include required fields and does not count toward page total.	Draft includes Company, title, date, POC; missing email, phone, address; unclear title/body separation.	Partially Covered
Executive Summary – Solution Description	Provide detailed description and applicability.	Draft describes PhantomShift architecture, functionality, and applicability.	Covered
Executive Summary – Capability Desirements	Define capability desirements addressed.	Draft describes desirements: reduced manual effort, cognitive load, risk awareness, efficiency.	Covered
Executive Summary – Current Deployments	Describe any current deployments in government or commercial systems.	Draft references research partnerships but no explicit production deployments.	Partially Covered
Technology Concept – Unique Aspects	Describe unique aspects of solution.	LLM + Unix shell integration, Streamlit UI, Python engine, RAG knowledge base, API modularity.	Covered
Technology Concept – Technical Specifications	Provide detailed technical specifications.	High-level architecture provided; missing low-level specs.	Partially Covered
Technology Concept – Relation to Known/Unknown Desirements	Explain relation to known/unknown desirements.	Draft clearly explains support for known and emerging needs.	Covered
Approach – Solving Focus Area	Describe how solution solves designated Focus Area.	Draft explains penetration testing workflow support but does not restate Focus Area text.	Covered
Approach – Past/Current Efforts	Identify past/current efforts showing results.	Draft references Company’s tools, partnerships, training labs.	Covered
ROM Cost – Unit Cost Range	Provide ROM cost for 1–6 month assessments.	$90k–$225k provided.	Covered
ROM Cost – Variables Affecting Cost	List variables influencing cost.	Draft lists duration, users, environment, customizations, hardening, integrations.	Covered
ROM Cost – Schedule / Lead Time	Provide minimum delivery lead time.	Four-week lead time stated.	Covered
ROM Cost – Assumptions	Include assumptions used in ROM.	Draft lists infrastructure, no classified data, isolated environments, safe use guidelines.	Covered
Page Limit Compliance	Submission must not exceed 3 pages; formatting constraints apply.	Draft claims compliance but unverifiable from excerpt.	Conditionally Covered
Structure / Section Headings	White Paper must include required sections.	Draft uses correct section headings (1.1–1.4 plus 1.5).	Covered
Extra Content Beyond Stated Areas	Excess content must not obscure required sections.	Section 1.5 included but not obstructive.	Minor Deviation

Detailed Content Gap & Enhancement Analysis

Requirement Element	Reference Expectation (WPReqs.pdf)	Observed Draft Treatment (white_paper.pdf)	Gap / Enhancement Need
Contact Information Completeness	Title page must include Company Name, Title, Date, POC, Email, Phone, Address.	Draft missing email, phone, address; unclear legal company name.	Add POC contact details and explicit legal company name.
Explicit “Current Deployment” Narrative	Describe current deployments supporting gov/commercial systems.	Draft references research partners but unclear deployment maturity.	Clarify deployment stage: research, pilot, or production.
Technical Depth vs Conceptual Description	Technology Concept should include detailed specifications.	Draft provides architecture-level detail only.	Add concrete specs: OS support, hosting model, security controls, data flow.
Linkage to “Provably Secure System” Theme	Connect solution to assurance/provable security aspects.	Draft focuses on offensive testing efficiency, not assurance ties.	Add linkage: evidence generation, repeatability, assurance frameworks.
Unknown Capability Desirements – Explicit Treatment	Discuss relation to unknown emerging needs.	Draft mentions modularity but remains high-level.	Add concrete examples of rapid incorporation of new desirements.
Focus Area Traceability	Map solution to specific Focus Area language.	Draft describes solution generically; no explicit mapping.	Map key features to sponsor-provided Focus Area terminology.
ROM Cost Structure Transparency	Explain variables and scaling.	Draft lists variables but no example scenarios.	Add brief example pricing scenarios.
Formatting Section (1.5) Necessity	Formatting compliance does not require narrative section.	Draft includes 1.5 describing compliance.	Remove or compress content; rely on visual formatting instead.
Title Page vs Body Separation	Title page must be distinct and not counted in page limit.	Excerpt intermixes title block and body content.	Ensure separate title page with clear page break.

Risk and Compliance Impact Assessment

Risk Area	Cause	Likelihood	Impact on Evaluation	Overall Risk	Suggested Mitigation
Incomplete Contact Information	Missing email/phone/address for POC.	Medium	Minor non-compliance; reviewer friction.	Low–Medium	Add complete POC contact info on title page.
Ambiguity About Deployment Maturity	Draft unclear whether PhantomShift is production-deployed.	Medium	Confusion about readiness may lower scoring.	Medium	State deployment level clearly with counts or explicit 'none'.
Insufficient Technical Detail	Conceptual description dominates; lacks concrete specs.	Medium	Technical evaluators may downgrade feasibility.	Medium–High	Add key technical parameters (OS, auth model, logging, integration).
Weak Tie to 'Provably Secure' Theme	Draft lacks explicit assurance linkage.	Medium	Perceived misalignment with event theme.	Medium–High	Add evidence-based security and assurance narrative.
Potential Page Limit Misinterpretation	Actual formatted length unknown; Section 1.5 uses space.	Unknown	Non-compliance risk if document exceeds 3 pages.	High	Verify PDF layout; remove non-essential text.
Unclear Focus Area Mapping	No explicit mapping to sponsor’s Focus Area language.	Medium	Reviewers must infer alignment; may reduce responsiveness score.	Medium	Add explicit bullet-level mapping.
Over-emphasis on Self-Reported Compliance	Section 1.5 is defensive or filler.	Low	Minor negative perception.	Low	Streamline/remove Section 1.5.