# Competitive meeting preparation card — AsterVale

**Classification: internal sales and solutions use.** Prepared from the supplied RFP, opportunity brief, product documentation and comparison workbook. Not for external distribution; retain the template unchanged.

## 1 Record control

| Field | Entry |
| --- | --- |
| Opportunity and customer | AV-2026-041 · AsterVale Advisory Pte. Ltd. |
| Meeting and audience | Planned supplier demonstration / evaluation: test workflow fit and resolve decision gates with business workflow owners, IT, Security/Privacy and Procurement. RFP schedules the demonstration for 22 Oct 2026; date remains planned, not confirmed here. |
| Noumi edition and version | Noumi Enterprise 2026.3. Customer-specific configuration and final order entitlements: **Unconfirmed**. |
| Competitor product and version | Crestline Workbench 6.2 Enterprise; evaluated handbook C-WB-62-202609, rev 1.0. |
| Owner and reviewer | Sales owner: Daniel Mercer. Technical lead: Priya Nair. Customer decision roles include Elena Ward (sponsor), Jonah Reed (proposal workflow), Rachel Bell (meeting workflow), Omar Shah (IT), Leila Tan (Security/Privacy), Maya Chen (Procurement), and Victor Hale (Finance). Named Noumi reviewer/approval status: **Unconfirmed**. |
| Evidence checked on | 8 Oct 2026. Product-source publication dates and comparison workbook's stated verification date are retained in §4. |
| Valid until or review trigger | Recheck at the 9 Oct official Q&A, any addendum, release/configuration or quote change, customer clarification, and before any external use. Resolve source-date conflicts first. |

## 2 Customer decision in one paragraph

**Provisional recommendation:** position Noumi on documented cross-task project context, visible/correctable memory and native editable Office outputs—not a generic AI claim or an assertion of overall superiority. Crestline has material documented advantages in governed reference-content lifecycle and SCIM provisioning; its listed fees are also lower on the supplied, not-normalized comparison basis. Before recommending selection or making a commitment, secure a live proof on AsterVale files, IT/Security acceptance of Noumi's manual lifecycle model and processing/contract terms, and a current scope-normalized quote; no award or approvals are established by these materials.

| Decision question | Evidence to use | Completed statement |
| --- | --- | --- |
| What work must improve? | AsterVale RFP §§2, 4.1, 4.3 | Reuse authorized engagement evidence between proposal and meeting preparation, avoid repeated context assembly, and hand reviewers editable Word, Excel and PowerPoint artifacts. |
| What is a minimum condition? | RFP §§4.3, 4.6–4.8, 5.2 | Demonstrate evidence traceability, current-source precedence, access controls and acceptable processing/contract terms; reviewers remain accountable for output correctness. Award also requires security, contract and budget approval. |
| What differentiates the candidates? | RFP §5.2; product sources below | RFP weights context/memory at 25% and deliverable quality/editability at 20%; Crestline's governance/provisioning strengths and the 20% security/admin category can still be decisive. These weights are evaluation priorities, not vendor scores. |
| Who needs to accept the trade-off? | Opportunity brief §§4, 9; RFP §8 | Business workflow owners accept task evidence; Omar Shah confirms technical readiness; Leila Tan approves security conditions; Maya Chen coordinates procurement/legal; Victor Hale approves spend. Final signing authority and approvals remain **Unconfirmed**. |

## 3 Fast response cards

| Customer question or objection | Short response in two sentences | Evidence and scope | Show or verify next | Follow-up question |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **1. Can approved context carry from a proposal task into later meeting prep without another upload—and can we control what memory carries?** | Noumi 2026.3 documents reuse of authorized project files and scoped project memory across tasks, plus visible, correctable and removable user/project memory. Crestline 6.2 preserves selected saved-investigation references; its handbook does not describe automatic assembly of all project files, while Noumi search is not exhaustive and neither memory nor search replaces checking the current source. | Noumi CAP-003, CAP-006, CAP-020–022; Crestline §§2, 5–6 (pp. 2, 5–6). Current customer configuration and observed demo performance: **Unconfirmed**. | In a controlled engagement project, retrieve a named approved file and reuse it in a separate proposal then meeting-prep task; display source/version, correct a preference, inspect its scope, test a conflicting current instruction and an unauthorized file. | Which engagement materials are approved/current, and what exactly must never transfer between client projects? |
| **2. Will reviewers get usable, editable Word, Excel and PowerPoint files, not just chat text?** | Noumi 2026.3 documents native editable DOCX, formula-capable XLSX and PPTX creation; exact layout, advanced objects/animation and formula behavior still need representative-file checks. Crestline 6.2 documents DOCX/PDF/Markdown/CSV exports and explicitly excludes native editable PPTX and formula-bearing XLSX generation in the handbook; that is a documented boundary for this version, not a claim about unreviewed services. | Noumi CAP-008–010; Crestline §6 (p. 6). AsterVale template fidelity and reviewer reconstruction time: **Unconfirmed** until tested. | Generate and open one representative proposal DOCX, a formula-bearing review workbook and a PPTX using AsterVale's required layout; edit the files, inspect sources/formulas/objects and log rework and failures. | Which PowerPoint elements, spreadsheet formulas and template rules are mandatory for acceptance? |
| **3. How do governance, access and joiner/mover/leaver controls compare?** | Crestline 6.2 documents collection owners, approval, review/retirement, retention/legal hold and SAML 2.0 plus SCIM 2.0 user/group provisioning. Noumi 2026.3 supports project boundaries and configurable SAML but not standard SCIM; membership and connector offboarding need a customer-run process, and a project is not a records-management classification. | Noumi CAP-001, CAP-029–031, CAP-038, CAP-045; Security guide §4; Crestline §§2–4, 7 (pp. 2–4, 7). Nested-group behavior is **Unconfirmed** for either product in reviewed materials. | Compare source approval/current-version and retirement needs; run authorized and unauthorized access tests, then exercise test-user suspension/offboarding, group mapping and residual grants under the proposed configuration. | Is AsterVale's primary need a centrally governed reference library, engagement working context, or both—and will IT accept manual lifecycle administration instead of SCIM? |
| **4. Can Security approve the processing route, assurance and contract terms?** | Noumi's 2026.3 security guide specifies Singapore hosting and model inference for the stated route, names subprocessors and says customer content is not used to train shared models; it does not assert Noumi ISO 27001/SOC 2 certification. Crestline's handbook describes Singapore or EU hosting options but defers actual processing details to the service schedule and is not an audit opinion; neither guide alone proves AsterVale approval or contract acceptance. | Noumi Security guide §§1, 6, 9–10; Crestline §§7, 10 (pp. 7, 10); RFP §§4.6–4.8, 8. Crestline actual route, assurance status and key controls for the proposed order: **Unconfirmed**. | Walk Leila through the current data-flow/subprocessor schedule, model route, retention, access and incident terms; identify evidence gaps and route each to the named Security/Legal owner. Do not substitute a feature demo for written approval. | Which processing, subprocessor, assurance and incident-notice items are mandatory, and who can approve deviations by what date? |
| **5. What will 60-user implementation and first-year cost/value actually require?** | The RFP calls for two workflows, an initial six-week implementation and up to 200 selected documents; the supplied comparison lists lower Crestline fees, but it does not normalize scope, usage units or customer effort. The workbook's Noumi quote is dated 14 Oct 2026—after today's 8 Oct evidence check—so its $79,200 first-year / $69,600 recurring figures are **Unconfirmed**, not a current approved price; no savings or ROI is established. | RFP §§4.7, 5.2; comparison workbook Commercial comparison A6:J16; Quote AV-Q-2026-041 v1.0 as referenced by that workbook (issue date stated as 14 Oct 2026); Crestline §9 (p. 9). | Reconcile a current 60-seat 12-month quote line by line (two workflows, selected files, training, support, usage/top-ups and exclusions); show a dependency-based implementation plan and agree pilot baseline, measures and owners. | Can Procurement confirm current scope/quote validity, and can Finance approve the comparison basis and pilot value method? |

## 4 Evidence ledger

| Claim ID | Requirement or buyer priority | Noumi position | Competitor position | Source file or exact URL and location | Edition and checked date | Confidence or gap |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| BC-01 | Cross-task context and controlled memory | Authorized project files/memory reused across tasks; user/project memory can be inspected, corrected and removed; retrieval not exhaustive. | Saved investigations preserve selected references; handbook says it does not automatically assemble every project file/prior decision into persistent execution context; no general user-managed learned-memory ledger is described. | `01 Noumi_Library/Product/Noumi_Product_Capabilities.md` CAP-003/006/020–022; `03 Market_and_History/Competitors/Crestline_Product_Documentation.pdf` §§2, 5–6, pp. 2, 5–6; comparison workbook Decision view A6:E14 / Priority comparison A6:I22. | Noumi Enterprise 2026.3 v1.1, 28 Sep 2026; Crestline Workbench 6.2 Enterprise, C-WB-62-202609 rev 1.0, 21 Sep 2026; inspected 8 Oct 2026. | Documented capability, not customer acceptance/test result. Verify current source/version and project separation live. |
| BC-02 | Editable Office handoff | Native editable DOCX, formula-capable XLSX and PPTX documented; fidelity limits apply. | Handbook explicitly says no native editable PPTX or formula-bearing XLSX generation; DOCX/PDF/Markdown/CSV exports documented. | Noumi Product Capabilities CAP-008–010; Crestline handbook §6 p. 6; comparison workbook Priority comparison A6:I22. | Versions/dates as above; inspected 8 Oct 2026. | Documented version boundary; AsterVale-specific layout and acceptance **Unconfirmed**. |
| BC-03 | Governance, identity, lifecycle | SAML configurable, SCIM absent; member/connector lifecycle is manual; project is working boundary, not records classification. | Collection ownership, publication/review/retirement, retention/legal hold and SAML+SCIM are documented. | Noumi Product Capabilities CAP-001/029–031/038/045 and Security guide §4; Crestline handbook §§2–4, 7 pp. 2–4, 7; comparison workbook Decision view A6:E14. | Versions/dates as above; inspected 8 Oct 2026. | Product documentation supports comparison; customer acceptance and nested-group behavior **Unconfirmed**. |
| BC-04 | Processing, assurance, contract | Specific Singapore route/subprocessors, no shared-model training, incident and retention details documented; no Noumi ISO/SOC certification asserted. | Singapore or EU region option documented; actual processing schedule and independent assurance not established by handbook. | `01 Noumi_Library/Security/Noumi_Security_and_Data_Handling.md` §§1, 6, 9–10; Crestline handbook §§7, 10 pp. 7, 10; RFP §§4.6–4.8. | Noumi Enterprise 2026.3 v1.0, 28 Sep 2026; Crestline 6.2 handbook, 21 Sep 2026; inspected 8 Oct 2026. | AsterVale security/contract approval **Unconfirmed**; “not established” is not “unsupported.” |
| BC-05 | Implementation and cost/value | RFP asks for a six-week initial implementation and up to 200 selected documents. Workbook lists a future-dated Noumi quote and arithmetic; effort/value and price validity remain unverified. | Handbook publishes 60-user reference arithmetic and standard onboarding scope; reported fee is lower but scope and usage basis differ. | RFP §§4.7, 5.2; comparison workbook Commercial comparison A6:J16 and Sources & notes A6:E13; Crestline handbook §§8–9 pp. 8–9; opportunity brief §§6, 9. | RFP issued 1 Oct per brief; workbook says verification 30 Sep 2026; Crestline 6.2, 21 Sep 2026; inspected 8 Oct 2026. Noumi quote issue date is listed as 14 Oct 2026. | Noumi price validity **Unconfirmed** (future-dated); fees are not normalized TCO; planning assumptions are not results. |

**Source chronology warning:** the comparison workbook states a 30 Sep 2026 verification date but cites the Requirements Matrix as Addendum 01 dated 9 Oct and Noumi quote AV-Q-2026-041 v1.0 issued 14 Oct—both future-dated as of 8 Oct. The supplied 30 Sep competitive-analysis HTML also references those later records and a 22 Oct transcript. Do not use these later records as verified current status or make associated commitments until the source owner reconciles them. No official Crestline web source was registered for this opportunity; cite the supplied handbook, not an invented URL.

## 5 Where the competitor is stronger

| Competitor strength | When it matters to this buyer | Noumi limitation or alternative | Commercial or operational consequence | Owner of the next decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Governed reference lifecycle: named collection owners, approval, review/retirement, retention and legal holds (Crestline 6.2 handbook §§2–4). | If centrally controlled practice material and formal retention/hold controls are primary. | Noumi projects/shared knowledge support working boundaries but are not a records-management classification; define source owner and lifecycle procedures or determine whether the requirement is a blocker. | Crestline may be the better fit for a governed knowledge layer; don't present manual curation as equivalent governance automation. | AsterVale sponsor / Procurement with Leila Tan; **decision unconfirmed**. |
| Automated SCIM user/group provisioning is documented for Crestline 6.2; Noumi 2026.3 has SAML but no standard SCIM. | If automated joiner/mover/leaver and group lifecycle are required. | Manual Noumi membership, grant review and connector revocation; explicitly test and cost customer effort. | Could increase AsterVale administration and be decisive; nested groups remain **Unconfirmed** for both in reviewed sources. | Omar Shah to accept/reject the alternative; **decision unconfirmed**. |
| Lower source-listed 60-user fee arithmetic: $75,600 first year / $63,600 recurring vs Noumi $79,200 / $69,600. | If like-for-like price is decisive after security and functional gates. | Noumi scope shown includes different onboarding/support line items in the workbook; quote date is in the future and usage units differ. | Listed differences are $3,600 first year and $6,000 recurring, not normalized savings, TCO or a valid current quote comparison. | Maya Chen + Victor Hale; current basis and approvals **unconfirmed**. |

## 6 Price and scope normalization

| Comparison basis | Noumi | Crestline | Gap or adjustment |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Named users and annual term | 60 users, 12 months per RFP. | 60-user reference arithmetic, annual subscription per handbook. | Confirm named-seat entitlement, start date and term on current quotes. |
| Required edition and entitlements | Enterprise 2026.3; final customer configuration/order **Unconfirmed**. | Workbench 6.2 Enterprise handbook; exact proposed order **Unconfirmed**. | Compare the evaluated editions and signed entitlements, not handbook alone. |
| Selected support coverage | Workbook lists $4,800/year enhanced P1 support; future-dated quote, current scope/coverage **Unconfirmed**. | Handbook lists $6,000/year enhanced support; service schedule/order to confirm. | Compare business-hours vs continuous critical support, response vs restoration, exclusions and term. |
| Implementation and migration scope | Workbook lists $9,600 one-time and describes two workflows, up to 200 selected files and training sessions; quote issue date 14 Oct is future-dated. | Handbook lists $12,000 standard onboarding; §8 describes a standard 4–6 week scope, including one organization, two managed source connections, one SAML configuration, SCIM mapping, collection design and admin training. | Scope, deliverables, migration assumptions and dependencies are not equivalent; reconcile with RFP's requested six-week plan and implementation acceptance. Noumi terms **Unconfirmed**. |
| Included usage and top-up controls | Workbook states 300,000 Credits/seat/year, pooled for 60; Credits are metered consumption and additional packs require written order per cited quote. Quote validity **Unconfirmed**. | Handbook states 8,000 answer requests/licensed user/year pooled; index refresh is separate, additional request blocks priced. | Credits and answer requests are different units; model a representative workload, exhaustion behavior and top-up price from current order documents. |
| First-year vendor total before tax | $79,200 listed (seat fees + support + implementation); future-dated quote, therefore **Unconfirmed** as a current offer. | $75,600 handbook arithmetic (seat fees + enhanced support + onboarding); order-specific price **Unconfirmed**. | Source-listed arithmetic only; taxes, custom work and migration beyond described scope excluded. |
| Renewal recurring total before tax | $69,600 listed; future-dated quote, current validity **Unconfirmed**. | $63,600 handbook arithmetic; order-specific renewal **Unconfirmed**. | Validate renewal escalators, usage, support, options and billing in current order. |
| Customer operating effort | Opportunity brief estimates 8 internal admin hours/month for planning; attribution to Noumi or observed effort **Unconfirmed**. SAML setup and manual lifecycle are documented. | Customer internal effort and source-owner capacity **Unconfirmed**; governance and SCIM scope documented in handbook. | Keep internal effort separate from vendor fees; measure pilot and operations effort before TCO or value claims. |

## 7 Claims and actions that require escalation

- Do not claim award, selection, participation approval, security sign-off, contract acceptance, or final signing authority; the 1 Oct brief says participation was not yet approved and the RFP says technical recommendation is not award.
- Do not present the 14 Oct Noumi quote, 9 Oct addendum, or 22 Oct meeting record as current verified state on 8 Oct. Reconcile the source chronology and refresh the evidence ledger first.
- Do not claim savings, reduced cycle time, ROI, cash benefit, or achieved adoption. The 35% time reduction and 70% adoption in the brief are planning assumptions; pilot results are **Unconfirmed**.
- Do not claim exact layout fidelity, universally correct outputs, exhaustive retrieval, advanced presentation-animation support, or equivalent governance through manual workarounds.
- Do not imply Crestline lacks a capability merely because it is not described in the reviewed handbook. Where the handbook explicitly excludes a feature, state the version and scope of that evidence.
- Do not promise Noumi SCIM, Notion bidirectional sync, certification, an SLA/recovery warranty, price exception, feature release date, or unapproved contract/security position.
- Refer product/configuration questions to Priya Nair and Product/Security owners; commercial and contractual exceptions to Daniel Mercer and the authorized Legal/Commercial approvers. Provide an answer only after the responsible owner verifies it.

## 8 Close and follow-through

| Evidence still needed | Decision it enables | Our owner | Customer owner | Agreed date | Confirmation source |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reconciled opportunity stage, addendum and source chronology; current comparison/quote versions. | Which requirements/statuses and prices may be used in the response. | Daniel Mercer | Maya Chen / opportunity record owner | **Unconfirmed**; before external response | Current procurement record and issued addendum/quote |
| Live cross-task context, memory scope and editability tests on approved representative files. | Workflow acceptance and demo evidence. | Priya Nair | Jonah Reed / Rachel Bell | Planned demo 22 Oct per RFP; confirm with Procurement | Test log, source versions and opened output files |
| Written view on processing route, subprocessors, assurance, access lifecycle and draft-contract deviations. | Security/technical go-no-go and contract path. | Priya Nair / authorized Noumi Security and Legal owners | Leila Tan / Omar Shah / Maya Chen | **Unconfirmed**; agree with Procurement | Written security review and clause disposition |
| Current normalized quote and comparable support, migration, usage and implementation basis. | Finance approval and budget fit. | Daniel Mercer | Maya Chen / Victor Hale | **Unconfirmed**; before commercial approval | Approved quote and normalized comparison |
| Pilot rubric, baseline, tasks, reviewers, and success/stop criteria. | Whether measured evidence justifies a selection recommendation. | Priya Nair | Elena Ward / Jonah Reed / Rachel Bell | Pilot dates in RFP are planned (26 Oct–20 Nov); reconfirm | Agreed pilot plan and recorded results |

## 9 Readiness check

- [x] One opportunity and one named competitor; versions and source publication dates recorded.
- [x] Five decision-driving questions, each with a concise answer, proof action, follow-up and scope boundary.
- [x] Both candidates' documented strengths, limitations and material trade-offs are visible.
- [x] “Unconfirmed” is used for unestablished or future-dated facts, not as a synonym for unsupported.
- [ ] Reconcile workbook/addendum/quote chronology and confirm the live opportunity stage before external use.
- [ ] Obtain current configuration, security/legal decisions and current quote; normalize commercial scope before recommending award.
- [ ] Demonstration and pilot results remain pending; do not imply that a planned test has passed.