When your proposal is read by a committee, they will compare your proposal to their understanding of your goal, and more often than not, they are not experts in your area. The reason most proposals fail is due to the lack of a simple, yet crucial, sentence stating the goal, the total amount, and the time frame for which the proposal is being made.
That’s how you open a request. Everything else in your proposal is designed to create the impression that this is the least difficult and least risky item to consider among many the committee may read that morning.
Approval committees are selective and like to defer. Meetings have shown me that concerns like vague resourcing, empty risk registers, and cost-less inaction ticks those boxes every time. This author adopts the objection-based drafting approach rather than the theoretical hope that no one raises a concern, and moves the number front and center.
Templates for risk registers have a very high level of transparency. Committees have most likely read and discredited “scope creep,” “resource availability,” and “stakeholder alignment” a hundred times over. The real risks to note are the ones that only someone within the organization would be able to recognize.
The first conversation surrounds who will sign this off and what they said ‘no’ to last quarter. The writer then documents the dependencies with teams that will appreciate that availability. A proposal that relies on that availability will get a ‘no’ from that person during review.
Nothing leaves behind placeholder owners or dates ignoring the change freeze. The writer confirms that all numbers in the summary line up with their detailed descriptions. The writer also confirms that for each risk, a mitigation with an owner is listed, and that the options section indicates the alternatives that were eliminated as opposed to presenting one option as the only/inevitable path.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical project proposal | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concise | 1,500 | $150 | $1.50 | $151.50 |
| Standard | 3,500 | $350 | $3.50 | $353.50 |
| Full submission | 7,000 | $700 | $7 | $707 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Yes. Send two or three pieces you like the sound of, or your style guide. Matching an established voice is ordinary work for a writer and close to impossible for a model that has never read your back catalogue.
Yes. Tell us the volume and cadence and we keep the same writer on the account so the voice stays consistent. The rate does not change with volume.
It is often that time. Questions from the writer ultimately can help identify what hasn’t been decided and is much less costly to determine now than during a steering meeting. Many clients change the plan before the proposal is finalized.
The written case, yes. The financial modeling behind it, no. Send whatever payback or discounted cash flow work your finance team has done and the writer builds the narrative so it agrees with those numbers rather than sitting beside them.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Our old procedures were written by people who understood the process. These are not. They name each button on each step. Two of our newer drivers used them without even asking me questions, which has never happened before.
Rewritten policy that is ninety pages long and uses plain English. Nothing important was lost in the process of softening legal language. Our employment solicitor changed only four words. This brings me satisfaction because it seems that the staff actually read the policy unlike before. I had lost hope on that.
The first brief we received was too general. The writer noted this rather than trying to understand it himself. We did a twenty-minute call. Obviously frustrating that it was needed, still useful that this happened, as the finalized procedures reflect the way the warehouse operates. This includes the different procedures the night shift performs.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees