Additional course links
You leave with: A requirement register entry, a field-to-source map and a reconciliation of two different totals for Horizon's R-2 reporting.
Where this fits: Lesson 4 ends with Horizon's own obligations. Once Eastgate's figures are defined, checked and clarified, the board, the auditor and Horizon's annual return all draw on the same R-2 evidence. This deep dive answers the question the lesson raises: how do you produce those reports from evidence you already verified, without re-collecting it and without forcing different totals to match? You bring back a field-to-source map and one reconciliation for step 4 of the workbook.
Watch · 13:19–14:15 · compliance questions the board needs
Unmesh argues that a system must be flexible enough to ask the compliance questions the board needs, and contrasts documents sitting in file systems with due diligence one chat away. The condition behind that: the documents are connected and defined first. Watch on YouTube ↗
Produce a grant compliance report by confirming the requirement that applies, mapping each requested field to a defined source, reconciling the figures and recording the review before submission. Reuse the underlying evidence where it fits, but apply each report's own period, basis and definitions. A board report, a tax filing and a funder report are not interchangeable views of one total.
Reuse the evidence. Verify the reporting rule.
Horizon reports on its own grantmaking too. For the pilot that means a board report on what R-2 funded, the auditor's request for proof of the A-31 decision, and whatever Horizon's annual return requires about grants paid. The evidence already sits on the R-2 records: decisions with their rule version, awards and conditions, payments, and grantee reports checked on arrival.
The work is applying each report's rule to evidence you trust. Bring the source index, the instructions and the person responsible for each report.
1. Identify which reports actually apply
Create a register of requirements. Separate regulatory filings, reports required by agreements with Horizon's own funders, and internal governance reports. For each, record the recipient, period, due date, the source of the requirement, the owner and the approver.
Do not ask an assistant to produce a filing calendar from an organization name. Give it the legal entity, jurisdictions, award terms and verified instructions, and have the responsible person confirm applicability. For U.S. organizations, the IRS state links directory points to state-government information. Use it to reach the relevant authority, and do not assume one state's form, threshold or deadline applies elsewhere.
Keep the version of the instructions used for each report, and check which periods a changed definition affects before reusing last year's mapping.
Understand the Form 990 examples without generalizing them
Schedule I of Form 990 concerns grants and other assistance to organizations, governments and individuals in the United States, and distinguishes cash from noncash assistance. Check its instructions and completion conditions rather than copying an award register into the form.
Schedule H is for hospital organizations and includes community-benefit information. It is not a standard grant schedule for every foundation or nonprofit.
Private foundations file a different return, Form 990-PF. Which return Horizon files depends on its status, and its preparer confirms that. The Form 990 deep dive from Lesson 3 explains why the document type matters when you read an applicant's return; the same care applies to your own.
2. Map each required field to a defined source
For every field, record its meaning, period, unit, source and any transformation, and name the person who approves the interpretation. "Grant amount" is too vague if one report means awards approved and another means cash disbursed.
| Field | Definition to confirm | Likely source | Review check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awards approved | Approval date, period and included status | R-2 decision records with rule version | Exclude drafts and reversals under the stated rule |
| Cash disbursed | Payment date, currency and adjustments | Horizon Finance payment records | Reconcile to Finance's total; conditional payments not yet released stay out |
| Grantee expenditure | Basis, grant share and period | Grantee's Finance-reconciled budget workbook | Do not substitute the award value or an invoice |
| Reported outcomes | Measure, cohort and follow-up window from the data dictionary | Grantee reports that passed the completeness check | Show coverage and anything pending |
A-31 shows why the rows stay separate. Eastgate's $24,000 counts in awards approved. Its second payment is held until the employer placement role is confirmed, so cash disbursed for A-31 is lower until that condition is met. Eastgate's own spending comes from its workbook, not from either Horizon figure. The persistent ID connects all three on one record without merging their meanings.
3. Reconcile differences instead of forcing a match
Two reports can legitimately show different totals. The task is to explain the difference under their definitions, not to edit one until it matches the other.
Horizon example · fictional
In a fictional program year for one of Horizon's other small funds, the board report shows $100,000 of new awards approved. Finance records show $70,000 paid against those awards, plus $20,000 paid against awards from an earlier year. Cash disbursed during the year is therefore $90,000.
| Reconciliation item | Amount | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| New awards approved | $100,000 | Board approval measure |
| Less unpaid portion of those awards | −$30,000 | Not disbursed in this period, including conditional payments |
| Plus payments against earlier awards | +$20,000 | Cash from a different award cohort |
| Cash disbursed in the period | $90,000 | Payment measure |
$100,000 − $30,000 + $20,000 = $90,000. Both totals are correct under their own definitions.
This explains a timing and scope difference; on a tax form, the preparer applies that form's own rules. Keep the included records and adjustments for each reconciliation. If a difference remains unexplained, name it and assign an owner before approval rather than hiding it in a balancing entry.
4. Keep the evidence behind each material statement
A report may combine financial totals, narrative claims and yes-or-no declarations. Each needs suitable support. A linked figure is not enough if the report also says a required process was followed.
Suppose Horizon's board report says every R-2 reviewer conflict was declared and handled before scoring. The support is A-17's conflict record: R3's declared board seat, the reassignment and its date. Evidence that a policy exists is not evidence it was applied. The audit trail deep dive in Lesson 5 shows how to keep that record ready before anyone asks.
Keep missing and conflicting sources visible. If a statement cannot be supported, revise it or obtain the evidence.
5. Prepare the report using the approved mapping
Assemble the draft from the defined sources. Check the period, legal entity, currency and labels, and look for truncated tables, hidden rows and totals from the wrong range.
In Sopact Sense, R-2 decisions, award terms, grantee uploads and completeness checks share one record per grantee, and the AI Assistant, or Claude or ChatGPT through MCP, can draft from them with a source for each figure.
Prepare a draft for [report and period] using the attached approved field definitions and authorized sources. For every material field, identify the source record and any calculation or transformation. Keep awards approved, cash disbursed and grantee expenditure separate according to the definitions. List unreconciled differences and missing evidence. Do not invent filing obligations, certify compliance or submit anything. Return a review checklist for the responsible approver.
Keep the human review separate: a line such as "all figures verified" belongs to the person who checked, not to the draft.
6. Review, approve and preserve the submitted version
Assign review steps to the right owners. The grants manager confirms outcome definitions and coverage, Finance reconciles amounts, and the authorized preparer decides the filing treatment. Record completion and anything unresolved.
Before submission, confirm the destination, deadline and required attachments against the current instructions. Save the approved version and any receipt or confirmation the process returns.
Do not replace that version when later data arrives. If Eastgate's clarification changes Q1 enrollment after the board report went out, the board report stays as submitted and the correction is recorded with its date and reason. A live internal view and a historical submitted report serve different purposes.
One limit belongs here. Source-linked evidence makes a report faster to check, but a person decides what it may claim, and compliance is established by the responsible preparer and, where relevant, an audit, not by the software that drafted it.
Common problems and focused fixes
| Problem | Focused fix |
|---|---|
| The board total differs from Finance | Compare definitions, period, award cohort and adjustments first. A legitimate difference needs a reconciliation; an error needs a source correction with a record of the change. |
| The report uses the wrong organization scope | Check whether the source covers one entity, a program or a consolidated group. Do not merge or split records to make a total look familiar. |
| The filing template changed | Compare the current requirements with the saved mapping, update the affected fields and get approval before reusing last year's output. |
| The report says "audited" but no audit supports it | Describe the checks actually performed, such as reconciled, reviewed or source-linked. Reserve audit language for an audit and its scope. |
Put it into practice
Explain two different totals
- Add one register entry for Horizon's board report on R-2: recipient, period, due date, source of the requirement, owner and approver.
- Write the four field-to-source rows for that report, using A-31 to test each definition: its $24,000 award, its conditional second payment and Eastgate's own Q1 spending.
- Reproduce the $100,000 to $90,000 reconciliation and name the source record needed for each adjustment.
- Change one input, such as a payment reversal or a later reporting period, and check that the reconciliation updates and the earlier version stays available.
- Carry the map into step 4 of the workbook beside A-31's data dictionary.
Download the workbook (PDF)
Practice data: horizon-r2-applications.csv · horizon-rubric.csv · calibration-scores.csv · eastgate-q1-update.csv
Check your reasoning before moving on
Awards approved should come from the R-2 decision records with the rule version, and include A-31 at $24,000. Cash disbursed should come from Horizon Finance's payment records and exclude A-31's second payment until the placement-role condition is met. Grantee expenditure should come from Eastgate's reconciled workbook against budget version 2. Reported outcomes should come from reports that passed the completeness check, with Eastgate's enrollment marked pending until the clarification is answered. Each reconciliation adjustment needs its own records: the unpaid awards for −$30,000 and the prior-year payments for +$20,000. Pass condition: a colleague can explain each total under its definition and find the version approved for submission, and no one has forced unrelated measures to match.
Questions grant teams ask
What is a grant compliance report?
It is a report prepared to meet a specific award, regulatory or organizational requirement. Its contents, period and approval process depend on that requirement, so there is no universal format. Start from the instructions, map each field to a defined source, reconcile the figures and record who approved the version you submit.
Should board and regulatory totals always match?
No. They may use different periods, scopes or accounting definitions. Awards approved in a year and cash disbursed in that year are different measures and can both be correct. Reconcile the difference with named adjustments and supporting records, and correct genuine errors at the source rather than forcing every total to agree.
What is Form 990 Schedule I?
It reports grants and other assistance to organizations, governments and individuals in the United States, subject to its completion rules. Use the current instructions and field definitions rather than copying an award register into the form, and have the preparer confirm whether and how it applies to your organization.
Is Schedule H required for every grantmaker?
No. Schedule H is for hospital organizations and covers community-benefit information. Confirm which return and schedules apply to your organization with its preparer rather than treating any schedule as standard for every grantmaker.
Can Sopact Sense file regulatory reports for us?
No. Sopact Sense keeps decisions, awards, grantee documents and checks on one record and can draft a report with a source for each figure. Confirm the supported export for your required format. The authorized preparer reviews, approves and submits through the recipient's own process.
What should be saved after submission?
Keep the approved submitted version, its field-to-source map, the reconciliation, the review record and any submission confirmation. When later data changes a figure, record the correction through the recipient's process with its date and reason, and leave the submitted version as it was.