What shipped
Built a standard-library Python CLI package, ai_pilot_proof_room, that creates and validates a local buyer-facing proof room from a Freight AI Pilot Readiness Sales Pack.
Implemented commands:
sample-proof-room --path <workspace>creates deterministic demo inputs undersales-pack/andpilot-control/generate-proof-room --path <workspace>writes the complete proof-room artifact setvalidate-proof-room --path <workspace>checks source contracts, generated outputs, disclaimers, required coverage, JSON parseability, scorecard structure, and unsafe autonomy language
Generated outputs:
- demo runbook
- 7-minute demo script
- stakeholder proof pages
- evaluation scorecard CSV
- approval-boundary walkthrough
- objection handling
- follow-up email variants
- consolidated
proof-room.json
Architecture
- Used Python 3.11+ and only the standard library for easy local inspection and deterministic execution.
- Reused the parent build's contract style: filesystem workspace, JSON source files, Markdown/CSV/JSON outputs, and a direct shell verifier.
- Seeded compatible demo input locally so verification has no absolute dependency on the parent build path.
- Kept validation explicit and string-based because the artifact requirements are fixed and buyer-facing.
- Treated the optional control-tower JSON as enrichment, not a hard runtime dependency.
Trimmed scope
- No web UI, PDF, slide deck, database, hosted deployment, SaaS account model, or external integrations.
- No live freight, TMS, EDI, carrier, payment, claims, safety, email, CRM, calendar, browser, OAuth, or workflow-system integration.
- No provider/model/API calls.
- No dynamic personalization beyond deterministic content derived from local JSON contracts.
Limitations
- The generated artifacts are meeting and evaluation aids, not production freight operations guidance.
- Validation is intentionally conservative but not a legal or compliance review.
- The fallback mode without
pilot-control/pilot-control-tower.jsonproduces a usable proof room, but real buyer meetings should attach richer workflow evidence. - The scorecard is fixed to the MVP criteria rather than configurable per buyer.
Suggested next steps
- Add optional buyer-specific overrides from a local YAML or JSON file.
- Add a redaction checklist generator for client-provided sanitized samples.
- Add an export bundle command that copies only proof-room artifacts into a shareable folder.
- Add configurable scorecard weights once real buyer feedback shows which criteria matter most.
- Add golden-file tests if this becomes a maintained package.