Freeze the decision rules for the round
Before Horizon opens R-2, record eligibility requirements, assessment criteria, weights if used, clarification policy and decision authority. Explain the process to applicants at the appropriate level. A private late change can alter who succeeds without giving applicants a fair chance to respond.
If a material correction to the rules becomes necessary, document the reason and handling approach for the affected pool. The committee should know which reviews require reconsideration.
Keep the rule version with each assessment. A spreadsheet heading saying “final score” is not enough when different reviewers used different definitions.
Define the meaning behind follow-up fields
For a grant, “people reached” might mean unique people, attendance entries or estimated audience. Name the unit, period, population and method before asking recipients to supply a number. Keep a narrative field for explanation where the metric alone cannot describe the work.
Different awards can retain relevant measures while sharing a small set of genuinely comparable fields. Do not invent a universal outcome merely to populate a dashboard.
Separate budgeted, committed and spent amounts if those distinctions matter. Record currency and period, and define any conversion method. Application review does not by itself provide a finance system or validate financial statements.
Use shared context to improve review
Provide reviewers and configured analysis with the applicable definitions, criteria and source scope. The benefit is an explicit basis for interpretation, not a promise that adding a dictionary makes every result accurate.
Test the same ambiguous example with two colleagues. If one interprets “served” as unique people and the other as visits, improve the definition and collection prompt before aggregating.
For reports across rounds, state material rule changes and coverage. A higher average score under an easier rubric does not establish that applicant quality improved. Keep distinctions visible when they affect the decision.
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.
| Definition | Specify | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility | Rule, version and exception process | Unrecorded exceptions |
| Rubric | Criterion, anchor and evidence standard | Scores without meaning |
| Progress measure | Unit, period, population and source | Combining unlike counts |
| Financial figure | Currency, basis and period | Treating a proposal budget as expenditure |
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.
- What Are Grant Reporting Requirements?
Define award reporting obligations, compatible fields and evidence before comparing recipient updates.
Add this part to your plan
On workbook page 5, define one scoring criterion and two follow-up fields. Add a version-change rule.
Download workbook (fillable PDF)Compare with a suggested answer
The rubric and follow-up dictionary have owners and dates. A recipient count states whether it is unique people or visits. Changed rules remain visible and trigger a comparison decision.
Self-check: Would two reviewers interpret the same field in the same way, or know when to ask?
Questions you may have
Can criteria change between rounds?
Yes. Version them and explain relevant changes. Do not assume scores from different rubrics are directly comparable.
Must every award report the same outcomes?
No. Share only meaningful common measures and keep award-specific evidence where it answers the actual question.
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 →