Before submitting a security questionnaire, check the answers you plan to reuse.

Check an inventory

Use three CSV columns: answer_id,approval_status,valid_until. Approval must be exactly approved; dates use YYYY-MM-DD. Use opaque IDs, not names or sensitive answer text. Maximum 500 rows.

Check as of

What the flags mean

Review required: approval is absent, the date is missing or invalid, the approval has expired, or an ID appears more than once. Expiry is inclusive: an approval dated today has not expired yet.

Within date: the supplied metadata passes these checks. This does not verify the underlying answer, source accuracy, security posture or compliance. A responsible reviewer must check the evidence before reuse.

Unlike a questionnaire platform, this does not generate answers, fill portals or certify anything. A spreadsheet can perform these checks too; this tool packages a repeatable check and review queue.

A practical review before submission

Use this when a customer questionnaire has a deadline and you already have an approved answer library. Export only the metadata for answers you intend to reuse. This is a review aid, not an answer generator or a security assessment.

1. Check permission to reuse. Confirm the answer owner, approval and review date in your authoritative library. Run the metadata check above.
2. Read the supporting source. Check that the claim applies to the product, service tier and time period the customer asks about. A current date does not establish that an answer is supported.
3. Resolve exceptions before sending. Route unclear claims to the responsible reviewer. Do not silently turn an expired or draft answer into an approved one.

Worked example: four rows, four requiring review

Load the synthetic example above and set the date to 2026-09-10. Both A-001 rows are flagged because the ID is duplicated. A-002 is flagged because its 2026-08-01 review date has expired. A-003 is flagged because its approval status is draft. The download is a review queue, not a set of corrected answers.

The blind spot to check manually

An approved, unique answer with a future date passes the metadata check even if its evidence refers to the wrong product or its claim is no longer true. This tool cannot detect that. Inspect the source and obtain reviewer approval before reuse.

A compact handoff to your reviewer

Keep a row for each exception in your existing internal tracker:

Answer ID | Flag | Source to inspect | Reviewer decision

For example: A-002 | expired | original evidence and owner review | pending. Keep source documents and decisions in your own workspace. If sharing a downloaded queue internally, review the IDs first; the file includes a link to this checker, but sharing is optional.

Would source reconciliation be worth USD 299?

The free tool checks metadata. The proposed paid job is to reconcile an urgent questionnaire with your approved library and return exact-match reuse candidates, source references and an exception queue for a responsible reviewer. Proposed scope: 100 questionnaire rows, 500 library rows and 10 plain-text sources, supplied as documented CSV inputs.

USD 299 is an unvalidated price hypothesis; the service is not available. Structured preparation and exact matching may make this less useful than your current workflow. A spreadsheet or general AI assistant may already be sufficient. No customer evidence yet establishes a reason to pay us. You can inspect the scope and record a nonbinding request without payment or contact details.

Opening this page is exploratory interest, not a purchase or commitment.

Was this useful?