---
name: cn-ib-inquiry-response-review
description: Decompose and review Chinese IPO and refinancing regulatory inquiry responses for complete issue coverage, evidence, intermediary procedures, explicit opinions, filing synchronization, and follow-up risk. Use for 上交所、深交所、北交所或证监会问询回复、审核问询、反馈意见、落实函、子问题拆解、逐项回复检查、中介核查程序、明确意见、招股书同步更新 or multi-round response review. This skill reviews answer quality and traceability; it does not replace legal or accounting judgment.
---

# CN IB Inquiry Response Review

Turn each regulatory question into an auditable set of answer obligations, then test whether the response and intermediary work actually satisfy them.

## Principles

1. Review against the regulator's verbs and subquestions, not only the response headings.
2. Separate the issuer's explanation from sponsor, counsel, and accountant procedures and opinions.
3. A conclusion without evidence is incomplete; a procedure without procedure evidence is not demonstrated.
4. Track whether material response content is synchronized into the prospectus or other filing.
5. Compare rounds so that a new explanation does not silently contradict an earlier response.
6. Mark judgment calls and likely follow-up questions explicitly.

## Workflow

### 1. Establish scope

Confirm the inquiry round, regulator, board, filing version, response cut-off, responsible intermediaries, and documents in scope. Preserve the original question numbering and wording.

### 2. Decompose every question

Read `references/question-decomposition.md`. Split the question by:

- each operative verb such as `说明`, `披露`, `量化分析`, `核查`, or `发表明确意见`;
- each period, entity, product, transaction, and exception;
- each addressed party;
- each requested comparison, explanation, evidence item, and filing update.

Use one row per atomic obligation and addressee in `assets/inquiry-review-template.csv`. Do not combine issuer disclosure and intermediary opinion in one untestable row.

### 3. Test the issuer response

For each issuer item, determine whether it is `answered`, `partial`, `unanswered`, or genuinely `not_applicable`. Check:

- direct answer to the requested point;
- relevant facts, periods, units, definitions, and denominators;
- quantitative support where the question requests it;
- explanation of exceptions and adverse evidence;
- exact source or filing locator;
- consistency with prior rounds and other filing documents.

Read `references/response-quality.md` before classifying completeness.

### 4. Test intermediary work

For sponsor, counsel, or accountant rows, require:

- procedures responsive to the specific risk;
- procedure evidence, sample scope, period, counterparties, or records reviewed;
- treatment of exceptions and limitations;
- an explicit opinion where requested;
- a logical connection between procedures, evidence, and opinion.

Do not accept `已核查相关资料` as a sufficient procedure description.

### 5. Test filing synchronization

When the response adds or changes material information, record whether the prospectus or other filing must be updated and the exact updated locator. Use `cn-ib-cross-document-check` for conflicting figures and `cn-ib-filing-refresh-control` for a broader refresh.

### 6. Validate the review matrix

Run:

```bash
python3 scripts/review_inquiry_matrix.py inquiry-review.csv --output inquiry-issues.csv
```

The script detects structural and closure defects. It cannot decide whether prose is substantively persuasive; review that manually using `references/follow-up-risk.md`.

### 7. Produce the reviewer view

Group findings into:

- unanswered or partially answered obligations;
- missing evidence and weak quantitative support;
- insufficient intermediary procedures or missing opinions;
- prospectus synchronization gaps;
- inconsistencies with prior rounds;
- likely follow-up questions and recommended remediation.

### 8. Apply accepted response edits

If the user asks to revise an existing Word response:

- keep the original file unchanged;
- use native Word tracked changes by default for every insertion and deletion;
- edit only the accepted issue rows and keep revisions as local as possible;
- preserve existing revisions and comments unless specifically asked to resolve them;
- do not replace entire paragraphs when a sentence-level amendment is sufficient;
- do not fake revisions with colored text, highlighting, or manual strikethrough;
- use a transparent revision author such as `Codex` when none is specified;
- verify the revision markup structurally, re-render every changed page, and rerun the obligation review.

Return a clean accepted copy only if the user requests it separately.

## Output contract

Deliver:

1. overall status: `BLOCK`, `MATERIAL GAPS`, `MINOR GAPS`, or `READY FOR REVIEW`;
2. question-to-obligation matrix preserving original numbering;
3. prioritized defect log with exact response locators;
4. intermediary procedure and opinion gaps;
5. filing synchronization list;
6. predicted follow-up questions, with reasons;
7. scope limitations and unresolved professional judgments.

When direct edits are requested, deliver the tracked-changes DOCX as the default corrected document.

Never state that a response is complete solely because every heading contains text.