Give each role a defined job
Applicants need to submit and clarify their own material under the round’s rules. Reviewers need their assigned evidence. The committee needs the authorized assessment view. Program staff need approved award terms and follow-up responsibilities. These are separate tasks.
Record conflicts of interest and apply the agreed reassignment or recusal process. Test that a removed assignment no longer grants the same access through a source file or export.
Assign an owner for incomplete submissions and questions. Avoid informal email clarifications that only one reviewer sees. Where clarification is allowed, attach it to the submission and make its status clear to the relevant reviewers.
Make authority and sharing explicit
A committee decision should record who had authority, what evidence was considered and the applicable conditions. Suggested scores are inputs. Do not describe AI as an accountable decision-maker or promise that a ranked output removes the need for human review.
Recipient communications, internal deliberations and public award announcements have different audiences. Approve what each audience receives and inspect source links as well as the visible report.
If finance or another system must act on the award, specify the required handoff, owner and confirmation. Do not assume a connected application record automatically makes payments or reconciles expenditure.
Rehearse the whole round
Use fictional A-31, an incomplete application and an application assigned to a conflicted reviewer. Test a clarification, corrected assessment, committee decision and first reporting request.
Check permitted and denied actions. Can the applicant see only its own permitted material? Can the reviewer trace a criterion to the right version? Can program staff find the approved conditions without unrestricted committee notes?
Document gaps and retest the affected steps. The completed course produces an operating plan your small team can maintain. A connected collection and analysis platform earns its place when it reduces repeated reconstruction while keeping decisions and responsibilities visible.
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.
| Role | Responsibility | Test |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant | Submit and clarify permitted evidence | Cannot read another application |
| Reviewer | Assess assigned evidence; declare conflicts | Source access follows assignment |
| Committee | Make and document the decision | Can inspect and override suggestions |
| Program owner | Collect approved follow-up | Uses current terms and due dates |
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.
- Ask Your Whole Grant Round Anything (Assistant + MCP)
Answer a committee question from a defined, reviewable evidence set.
- What Is Connected Data Intelligence?
Before repeating the workflow, test identity, source context, shared definitions, access and reproducibility.
More practical questions in this module (4)
- What Are AI Skills?
For a recurring analysis task, define reusable instructions, evidence rules, evaluation examples and review ownership.
- How Do You Build a Grant Audit Trail?
For grants, reconstruct one decision and one figure from sources, approvals and applicable versions.
- What Are Grant Reporting Requirements?
Build an award-level obligation register and test how different funder requirements use compatible evidence.
- How Do You Produce Grant Compliance Reports?
For a specified reporting obligation, map fields and reconcile different totals before authorized review.
Add this part to your plan
On workbook pages 6 and 7, assign the roles and run one complete fictional round. Record one allowed action, one denied action and a corrected assessment.
Download workbook (fillable PDF)Compare with a suggested answer
The committee can reconstruct A-31’s decision. A conflicted reviewer’s assignment is handled explicitly. The award owner receives approved terms and a linked follow-up schedule, with unresolved integration work recorded.
Self-check: Can your team operate the next step without guessing who owns it?
Questions you may have
Can automated ranking replace the committee?
The course uses automated preparation as decision support. The authorized people remain responsible for the consequential decision.
Is post-award reporting part of application review?
It is a later workflow, but planning the connection at intake prevents accepted records and commitments from becoming disconnected.
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 →