Separate the organization from this application
A-31 is one submission from an organization in round R-2. If the organization applies again, the new submission needs its own identity. If it receives support twice, the awards need distinct dates, terms and reporting schedules.
Link people in their roles: applicant contact, authorized representative, reviewer or program participant. A change in contact should not create a new organization or transfer access without review.
Where an award supports an individual’s program participation, link the accepted application to a new learning or service episode. The application answers remain dated selection evidence; they do not automatically become current baseline observations.
Retain what the committee actually assessed
Store the submitted version and any permitted clarification separately. Record which version each reviewer assessed and when. If a budget changes after award, keep the approved revision and its reason alongside the earlier budget.
A correction and a new reporting period are different events. Correcting an erroneous value should preserve the audit trail; a new quarter should not overwrite the earlier return.
Record the decision, authority, date, conditions and relevant rationale. Avoid exposing internal deliberations to every contributor simply because they share the same connected record. Connection and access are separate design choices.
Plan the next collection while the relationship is clear
Define what the selected recipient must report, by when and against which milestone or period. Include supporting files only where they serve the agreed review. A generic survey repeated each quarter may not fit different award types.
Track due, submitted, clarification requested and approved as distinct states. A submitted update is not necessarily approved evidence, and an overdue update is not automatically proof of poor performance.
Test a handoff from the selection team to the program team. The next owner should be able to find the approved terms and next reporting request without reading the entire review history. This is the continuity that separate forms and folders often require staff to rebuild.
Work through the Horizon example
This is a fictional teaching example. Adapt the fields and rules to the question your own selection process needs to answer.
| Record | Connects to | Keep distinct |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | Contacts and submissions | Organization versus individual contributor |
| Submission | Round, files and assessments | Original versus clarified version |
| Award | Decision and approved terms | Separate awards to one recipient |
| Update | Award, period and supporting evidence | Submitted versus approved |
Build this part of your plan in more detail
These lessons address the next practical questions in this module. Choose the detail your workflow needs, then return to complete the exercise.
- How Do You Design an Intake Form for a Baseline?
After selection, decide what to reuse, verify or collect for the program baseline.
- How Do You Track Reviewer Conflicts of Interest?
Keep reviewer assignment, declared conflicts and decisions traceable.
More practical questions in this module (2)
- How Do I Evaluate an Accelerator or Startup Cohort?
For accelerator programs, connect selection with founder learning and company outcomes without mixing record levels.
- How Do I Measure the Impact of a Scholarship Program?
For scholarships, connect the award to appropriate recipient follow-up, coverage and reporting.
Add this part to your plan
On workbook page 4, draw A-31 from application through decision and first update. Add a revised budget and a changed contact.
Download workbook (fillable PDF)Compare with a suggested answer
The original proposal and assessed budget remain available. The approved revision records its reason. The first update has an award and period, while the changed contact is handled as a role and access change.
Self-check: Can the next program owner locate the current terms without losing the decision history?
Questions you may have
Should a selected application be overwritten with current information?
No. Keep the assessed version and link later observations or approved revisions.
Does this require every team to see every record?
No. Connected relationships can support continuity while access remains scoped to the task and role.
Apply the method to your work
Use the five-part plan to assess the sources, analysis and permissions your team needs. The solution page shows where a connected platform can support that workflow.
Explore the applications and grants solution →