Internal QA appendix · not for client distribution
A line-by-line comparison of the website proposal against the source-of-truth deck, PSL RFP 2026 working.pptx (54 slides, including speaker notes and internal comment boxes). Two outputs: content in the deck that never made it onto the site (below), and an index of the 25 claim flags placed throughout the site — red for fabrication risk, yellow for unverified or embellished.
← Back to the proposalSubstantive content that exists in the source deck (or its working notes) and is absent from the site. Items marked with a slide number quote where it lives.
Slide 6 · Differentiator #5
The deck lists six "Why WingspanRPM" points; the site's Chapter One cards use the six pillars from slide 3 instead. Five of slide 6's points are covered elsewhere, but #5 never appears: "We offer an array of services that work in tandem to develop and send a consistent brand message across every platform: web, social, mobile, search, ads and blogs. With a focus on media that works."
Slide 17 · Brand stewardship
Slide 17's working note scopes brand stewardship as "asset mgmt, QA, portal. Maintain integrity of home office brand no matter what communities throw at us." The site covers stewardship and QA but never mentions an asset-management portal — notable because the RFP's own title includes Digital Asset Management as a named service area. This may be the largest scope item with no dedicated answer on the site.
Slide 33 · Lead generation
Deck note: "Cluster market planning is moving offline from this RFP. Placeholder — slot in the final strategy framework here once ready." The site never mentions cluster-market planning. If the framework lands before 7/31, it has a natural home in Chapter Five; if not, the omission is at least a deliberate decision to record.
Slide 52 · Next steps
The deck closes with: "We look forward to the finalist conversation and to bringing a fully detailed proposal, pricing and creative samples to that meeting." The site's Chapter Nine covers fees and references but never makes this commitment — worth restoring, since it sets expectations for the 8/14 finalist presentation.
Slide 53 · Working note
Note on the "Where We Are" slide: "expand this slide with specific 2027 activation timeline once Further/HubSpot and cluster-market scoping are finalized." The site's Today / Tomorrow section has no timeline at all — the deck intends one to exist.
Slide 15 + speaker notes · Campaign framework
The deck's funnel framework is adapted from a physician-marketing template — the speaker notes still read "OBGYN and Sports medicine … physician announcements," and an internal note admits "details still say physician announcements." The site papered over this with "care-level campaigns" and "lease-up, repositioning" language (flagged on-site), but the real PSL specialty-campaign definitions don't exist in either artifact yet.
Slide 43 · Working notes
PR notes describe a concrete feedback mechanism beyond the submission portal (which the site does mention): "Top 3 news stories (may be nothing!) … or worksheet (whoever they meet with) — we have 3 people turning 100, let's send it out to JCC newsletter." The worksheet cadence is a tangible, community-friendly detail the site drops.
Slide 2 · Working note
Deck note: "Sent drafted answer on financial to Ang/Pat 7/27." The site's Q2 shows a bare "still to add" — the drafted answer exists and is in review, which is a better story for an internal reader and a shorter path to closing one of the 13 open items.
Slide 27 · Working note
"Coordinate with Further (Chris Friedel/Beatrix) on integrations. Also scope a small HubSpot MQL automation test. Potential activation Q4 26/Q1 27." Correctly absent from client-facing copy, but recorded here because two on-site claims (flagged red/yellow) present this planned work in the past tense.
Slide 30 · Placeholders
The deck's ongoing-management slide still contains "(LIST PLATFORMS)" and "(List other platforms)". The site confidently fills these in (the four major AI engines; GBP plus third-party review platforms). Reasonable inferences — but they are site-side decisions, not deck-approved lists, and should be ratified.
Consistency check · Passed
The deck's internal comments mark Q32 as partial, Q33–34 unaddressed, Q43/44/46 partial, Q50 partial, Q51 and Q54 unaddressed, plus references and bios outstanding. The site's "still being finalized" list (Q2, 28, 32–34, 43, 44, 46, 50, 51, 54, 56, 62) is consistent with those notes — no open item is being presented as finished at the question level. The flags below concern claims made within answers, not question status.
Every flag placed on the proposal, in page order. ⚑ RED = fabrication risk: contradicts the deck's working notes or presents invented data as fact. ⚑ YELLOW = unverified or embellished: not supported by the deck; verify or soften before submission. Hover any flag on the site for this same context in place.
| Location | Claim | Issue | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ⚑ | Hero | "All sixty-two RFP questions answered in place" | Site's own status list says 49 answered, 13 finalizing. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q2 | "Debt-conservative" | Financial characterization not in deck. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q3 | Named partner examples (production crews, PR networks, Further) | Deck never specifies partner-delivered services. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q47 | "Agency reviews run on three-year cycles" | Unsourced industry statistic. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q47 | "Financial services and higher education" verticals | Added beyond the deck's four verticals. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q48 | Both client lists | Not in deck text; confirm names + logo clearance. |
| ⚑ | Ch 1 · Q49 | "Almost nobody in this category is measuring it yet" | Sweeping competitive claim, unsupported. |
| ⚑ | Ch 2 · Q6 | "Lease-up, repositioning and announcement pushes" | Adapted from a physician-campaign template. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · schema demo | The Retreat at Lady's Island — 4.8★, 126 reviews | Invented example data for a real community. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q32 band | "Every platform here is one we operate in production today" | Deck says partner list still being assembled. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q14 | "We have scoped integration paths with Further's team" | Deck note shows this as a to-do, not done. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q23 | Mailchimp and Klaviyo implementations | Platforms added beyond deck's list. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q23 | MQL test "scoped" for Q4 26 / Q1 27 | Deck: future action item, not completed scoping. |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q30 | Wiki field detail (endpoints, credential custody, rollback…) | Elaboration beyond "Document: Wiki." |
| ⚑ | Ch 3 · Q31 | "Provisioned in PSL's name from day one" | Commitment the deck never makes. |
| ⚑ | Ch 5 · results | PSL: 8,766 conversions / 11% / $2,500 | Case-study numbers, not in deck — PSL will check them. |
| ⚑ | Ch 5 · results | St. George Village: 910 leads vs 22, $17 CPL | Case-study numbers, not in deck. |
| ⚑ | Ch 5 · results | Morning Pointe / The Blake / Wickshire figures | Case-study numbers, not in deck. |
| ⚑ | Ch 5 · Q22/24 | Synthetic submissions + weekly Yardi reconciliation | QA regimen not described in deck. |
| ⚑ | Ch 5 · Q35 | "Any financial relationship … disclosed in writing" | Deck: Q34 disclosure not yet answered. |
| ⚑ | Ch 6 · Q27 | GBP management "across all 54 communities" | Deck doesn't claim full-portfolio coverage today. |
| ⚑ | Ch 7 · Q52/53 | "Actively developing and beta-testing an agentic layer" | Deck note: "Say we are betatesting/development for it." |
| ⚑ | Ch 6 · Q43 | "We have shaped premium storytelling campaigns before" | Deck: partial answer, examples still needed. |
| ⚑ | Ch 9 · Q58/59 | 30-day account transfer, per-market cutover, weekly status | Transition commitments authored for the site. |
| ⚑ | Ch 9 · Q36/37 | 6/12-month outcome projections | Deck promises benchmarks, not predicted outcomes. |
Verified against the deck rather than flagged: the $127K+/mo spend and 65+ campaigns, the 10 sub-brands and 54 communities, 350 combined years, ~500 communities served, 50 employees, 800+ businesses in 40+ states, seven-year average tenure, the OccupancyIQ/CallRail/HubSpot/Gumshoe stack, the heat map (correctly labeled illustrative on both), the UGC Capture Kit, the 90-day plan, team roles, and the fee structure. Key dates and Justin Harden as contact were verified against the RFP document itself.
← Back to the proposal