# Deep Research Prompt — Offer Benchmarking

Adapt the bracketed fields to the offer under review, then run as a deep research task. Keep the offer's actual numbers in the prompt so results come back pre-benchmarked rather than generic; strip counterparty names into a public-record section only. If the offer deck is marked confidential, include only the minimum numbers needed for comparison.

The five-part structure below is fixed. It was validated on a 900 MW BTM gas proposal and generalises to any power, equipment, EPC, or colocation offer. Do not drop parts; adapt their contents.

---

**Research task: [offer class, e.g. "Behind-the-meter power contracts for US data centers"], [current period] market benchmarks**

I am evaluating a proposal from [counterparty type, not name] to [scope in one sentence: technology, scale, location], structured as [contract structure: term, pricing mechanism, any pre-commitment instrument]. I need to benchmark every commercial term against current market practice.

Research the following, prioritizing deals and data from [trailing 24 months]:

**1. Pricing benchmarks**
- [Primary price metric] for comparable [scope]. The proposal I'm evaluating is [their number]. Is this high, low, or market?
- All-in [unit price] comparisons against announced or reported deals: [name the comparable universe — specific companies, deal types, technologies].
- Capex/cost benchmarks: [$ per unit] at [scale] in [period], and what margin the proposed pricing implies for the counterparty at that cost.
- How pricing typically scales with [term length / volume / the specific structural variable in this offer].

**2. Contract structure norms**
- Standard structures for [offer class]: who bears [the key risk allocations in this offer: commodity, overrun, demand, residual].
- [Any indexation/adjustment mechanism in the offer]: how common, what protections offtakers/buyers negotiate.
- Performance guarantees and remedies typical for [offer class]: availability commitments, liquidated damages, abatement, step-in.
- [Any transition/conversion mechanism in the offer]: how the shift is governed and how value is shared.
- Termination rights, buyout options, minimum take obligations, and what happens if [the demand-side failure scenario].

**3. Pre-commitment risk sharing** (include whenever the offer asks for cash, LCs, or backstops before the counterparty's own final commitment)
- How [the pre-commitment instrument] compares to market: who takes pre-FID/pre-delivery risk, deposit norms, refundability.
- Precedents for [the instrument type] with [the specific equipment/scope], current lead times, and secondary market liquidity for the specific assets, which determines real downside if the deal dies.
- How lenders and rating agencies treat [the long-dated obligation] on an offtaker's balance sheet (debt-equivalence, imputed debt) and the effect on our financing capacity.

**4. Comparable transactions, named and specific**
- A table of every publicly known comparable deal from [trailing 36 months] with disclosed terms: parties, location, technology, scale, term, pricing, structure, status.
- [Jurisdiction]-specific regulatory context: [the tariff proceedings, certification regimes, and pending rules relevant to this offer].
- The counterparty's and sponsor's track record in this exact scope: completed projects, principals, anything public.

**5. Negotiation leverage points**
- Based on all the above, which terms in a proposal like this are most commonly negotiated down or restructured by buyers/offtakers, and what structural alternatives exist.

Output: structured report with a benchmark table for pricing terms, a comparable deals table, and a clearly flagged list of where the proposal I described sits vs market on each major term. Cite sources throughout; prefer primary sources (regulatory filings, company announcements, earnings calls, S&P/Wood Mackenzie class industry analysis) over aggregators.

---

## After the research returns

Map results into Section 4 of the review: one row per priced term, verdict per row. Where research found no benchmark for a term, the row stays empty and the term goes on the Section 5.2 undefined/unverifiable list; it does not get an invented range. Flag any research caveats (private pricing, triangulated ranges, vendor-sourced data) in the Section 4 source notes.
