> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/workflow-guides/direction/rfi.md).

# RFI

**Open this area:** In the CORTEX menu, select **Intelligence cycle → Direction**.

Ask an eligible internal person to review existing information, retain their answer or limitation, and close the response deliberately.

**Who uses this:** Requirement owner, Analyst, Reviewer.\
**Open in CORTEX:** `/direction`.\
**In-app guide:** `/help?topic=rfi`.

## Expected result

The exact question has an accountable addressed response, evidence or referral, and requester review.

## Before you start

* Create and activate an RFI requirement with the intended question and sufficient handling.
* The requester needs assignment authority; the selected addressee needs current Direction read/write access.
* An evidence-backed answer needs Memory access and suitable retained material; a nil, declined, or referral response does not invent evidence.

## What to do

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

## Open the current RFI

Open its Direction detail page and the request-for-information panel.

Use **Refresh RFI** to inspect any existing addressee, question revision, outcome, and history before issuing work.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Address the question

Enter the intended person's exact email and use the panel's eligible addressee search.

Select the returned account, record the reason, and choose **Address RFI**.

Editing the email clears the earlier person and reason; run a fresh successful lookup before assignment.

The acting sender is retained as requester; this records an internal assignment and sends no external message.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Review holdings and respond

As the addressed person, choose **Response outcome** and describe **Holdings reviewed** and limitations.

For **Answered from retained holdings**, resolve exact passages.

For a referral, search for an accepted active non-RFI requirement and select only a result from the current successful search. Editing or retrying the search clears an earlier candidate.

Explain a nil response or refusal honestly.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Retain the response

Select **Record RFI response** and check the stored outcome.

If the question changed, arrange deliberate reissue through the addressing workflow before responding; earlier answers remain in history.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Review and close

As the original requester with transition authority, inspect the evidence, limitations, and referral.

Enter **Requester review** and a closure reason, then select **Close reviewed RFI**.

Make any requirement-satisfaction decision separately.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Check the result

* Is this a request for existing holdings rather than new collection?
* Does the addressee match the person actually reviewing holdings?
* Does the answer address this exact question revision?
* Does the RFI retain all restrictions on its supporting evidence?

## If you get stuck

<details>

<summary>Why can I not respond or close?</summary>

Only the selected addressee responds and only the original requester closes, with the relevant current grants.

Check the current question revision and state; a changed question needs reissue first.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why is new collection unavailable from this RFI?</summary>

An RFI asks about holdings. Refer it to a separately accepted active intelligence requirement, then plan authorised collection against that requirement; the referral itself does not task collection.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why is an evidence-backed answer refused?</summary>

Inspect the exact retained passage, current Memory access, and RFI handling.

Use an appropriately marked request if its scope cannot carry the evidence; do not remove restrictions or paste a quote as a substitute for resolution.

</details>

## Responsibility and limits

* The addressee reports what was actually checked and what remains unknown; nil response is not proof that no information exists elsewhere.
* The requester judges whether the response meets the need. No RFI record establishes external delivery or creates authority to collect.

**Reference and scope:** JDP 2-00 (4th ed.), 3.10–3.12 distinguish requests for existing information from collection tasking. CORTEX records the internal request and its retained response.

## Related workflows

* [Define and manage an intelligence requirement](/workflow-guides/direction/requirements.md)
* [Find evidence and select exact retained passages](/sources-and-evidence/memory.md)
* [Plan collection and record observed results](/workflow-guides/collection/collection-plans.md)