Additional course links
You leave with: A trimmed question list and one focused clarification request, with its owner, deadline and a record of how the response changed the review.
Where this fits: In Lesson 1 you cut R-2 fields the decision does not need and wrote the message applicants receive when something is missing. This deep dive answers the harder half of that exercise: how to keep applicants' work small, and how to resolve A-44's missing fiscal-sponsor letter without asking for the application again. Bring back a trimmed question list and a clarification request you would be willing to send.
Reduce applicant burden by asking only for information that supports a decision, reusing documents applicants already keep, and resolving gaps with one focused request instead of a resubmission. When something is missing or contradictory, name the exact issue, say what response is needed and by when, and state what does not need to be resent. AI can draft the request from the record; a person checks that it is necessary, fair and accurate before it goes.
Remove work before automating it
A faster reminder for unnecessary information is still unnecessary work. Before you build any automated follow-up, go back through the questions and attachments. For each one, name who uses it, which decision it informs, and whether you already hold a current version.
The Trust-Based Philanthropy Project's paperwork guidance suggests accepting existing proposals, using a short initial screening stage, and learning through conversation. Weigh these against the rules of a competitive round, not instead of them. For R-2, Horizon accepts each applicant's own budget workbook instead of a Horizon template, and asks for a Form 990 only from organizations that file one.
Keep effort proportional to the stage. If you accept an existing document, say which extra details you need instead of asking for the same facts in a new format.
A documented practice: reuse the proposal, focus the conversation
In a 2018 account by the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, Lisa Pilar Cowan described accepting proposals written for other funders and using follow-up research and conversation to learn more. The foundation also developed an oral reporting process with questions shared ahead of the conversation.
It is a published example of a funder changing its process, not a Sopact customer story. The lesson it carries is that clearer learning needs reduce repeated paperwork.
Tell a clarification from a new chance to improve
A clarification resolves an ambiguity or a missing item within the rules of the round. A revision changes the proposal. Decide which your round permits before anyone contacts an applicant.
| Issue | Permitted clarification | Needs a separate policy decision |
|---|---|---|
| Fiscal-sponsor letter missing | Send the existing letter from the sponsor named in the application | Switching to a different sponsor after the deadline |
| The form amount and the budget disagree | Confirm which figure is correct and point to the calculation | A materially revised budget or a larger request |
| An attachment will not open | A readable copy of the same document | A new document written after the deadline |
| A count of young people has no period | State the period behind the submitted count | Changing the target to strengthen the proposal |
| An employer's role is unclear | Explain what the submitted letter commits to | Adding a new employer after the deadline |
A reviewer should not quietly coach one applicant into a stronger proposal while others get no equal chance. Record the policy basis for each request and the reason for any exception. A correction that looks small to staff can change a competitive outcome.
Write one request that names the gap
Group related questions so the applicant answers once. Include the application ID, the exact issue and where you found it, the action needed, the response channel and the deadline, and say what does not need to be resent.
Horizon example · fictional · review before use
Please send the fiscal-sponsor letter for application A-44
Your application to the Youth Pathways Fund, round R-2, says you are applying through a fiscal sponsor, but no fiscal-sponsor letter was uploaded. We need the letter to confirm eligibility before your application can be reviewed.
Please upload the letter from [sponsor named in your application], signed and naming your organization, through [approved channel] by [date, time and time zone]. You do not need to change or resend anything else.
If anything here is unclear or you need an accommodation, contact [program contact]. This request is not an award decision.
The placeholders are deliberate. A real request needs the actual channel, deadline and contact from the round's policy. Never send a draft that leaves those choices to the applicant or implies that any change they send will be accepted.
AI drafts the question; it never invents the problem
With a prompt configured on the upload field, the missing letter is flagged the moment A-44 arrives, and a draft request can be written from the record itself. Before approving it, the program owner checks the source. Was the letter uploaded into another slot, or inside the budget PDF? Is the organization a 501(c)(3) after all, which would make the letter unnecessary? A careful read can remove a question before it is sent.
The same check applies to a budget mismatch. Before asking why two totals differ, see whether one includes indirect costs, covers a different period, or comes from an earlier file version. The difference may already be explained.
Check application A-44 against the R-2 completeness and eligibility rules. List each required item that is missing, unreadable or inconsistent, quoting where you looked. For each, say whether the round's policy permits a clarification. Draft one message that covers all permitted items, uses the placeholders for channel, deadline and contact, and states what does not need to be resent. Do not add requirements, suggest eligibility or imply fault. Flag the draft for staff review.
Keep a named person responsible for the message and for the assessment that follows it.
Keep the response on the record
Store the request, its approval, the send date, the response and its source version with the application. "Response received" and "sufficient evidence" are different states, and only a reviewer moves one to the other.
| State | What is recorded | A-44 |
|---|---|---|
| Issue identified | Source, rule and reason | No fiscal-sponsor letter; gate unresolved |
| Request approved | Necessity and policy checked by the owner | One request, naming the letter |
| Awaiting response | Channel, deadline, any permitted reminder | Answered within the window |
| Response under review | New evidence linked without overwriting the original | Letter added as a dated item on the same record |
| Resolved or escalated | The reviewer's conclusion and next action | Gate passed; scored with the rest |
If a response does not resolve the issue, decide once whether another request is permitted and useful. Do not keep asking until the desired answer appears; record an unresolved outcome when that is what the evidence shows.
Reduce friction without weakening the evidence
Use plain language, accessible formats and a named contact. Tell applicants when a short explanation will do instead of a new document. Where a conversation fits, share the questions in advance and record an agreed summary.
Reuse needs a currency check. An unchanged document on file may not need asking for again, but an old financial statement or another program's budget may not be suitable. Keep accommodations apart from merit: an approved extension or an accessible format should never lower a score.
Measure whether the process is improving
Track a few operational measures across comparable rounds: the share of applications needing clarification, requests per application, time from response to review, and which issues recur. Ask applicants which requests were unclear or duplicated.
Read the measures together, and read them honestly. Fewer requests could mean clearer intake, or reviewers who stopped checking; a faster round could reflect a simpler applicant pool. Look at sample records and feedback before crediting a tool or a policy. If several R-2 applicants miss the same letter, the fix is upstream, in a clearer instruction or an upload that becomes required once an applicant names a sponsor, not in a larger reminder queue.
In Sopact Sense, A-44's request, the letter it produced and the reviewer's conclusion sit on the applicant's record under its persistent unique ID, so the history travels into review and later audit. An Intelligence Cell can flag the gap and draft the message; staff approve and send it.
Put it into practice
Close one issue with a defensible record
- Take your R-2 field-role table from step 1 of the workbook. Mark each field keep, cut or reuse an existing document, with one line of reason each.
- Find A-44 in
horizon-r2-applications.csv. Check whether the missing letter is already explained anywhere in the submission. - Write the smallest permitted clarification request that resolves it, with real placeholders for channel, deadline and contact.
- Have a colleague review it for accuracy, tone, deadline and policy consistency.
- Write two possible responses, one that resolves the issue and one that does not, and record the next action for each, including when to stop asking.
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
A good request names A-44, the missing fiscal-sponsor letter and why it matters (the eligibility gate), asks for the existing letter from the named sponsor, and says nothing else needs resending. It does not invite a new sponsor, a revised budget or a stronger narrative. If the letter arrives within the window and names the applicant, the reviewer records the gate as passed and A-44 moves to merit review. If it arrives late or names a different organization, the policy decides, and the record shows an unresolved gate rather than a quiet rejection. Another team member should be able to follow all of it without opening an inbox.
Questions grant teams ask
How can a funder reduce applicant burden?
Remove questions no decision uses, accept documents applicants already keep, show conditional questions only to those they apply to, and explain requirements before the form begins. When something is missing, send one focused request instead of asking for a resubmission. Fix recurring gaps in the form itself rather than in reminders.
What belongs in a clarification request?
The application ID, the exact issue and where it was found, the action needed, the response channel, the deadline and a contact. Say what does not need to be resent, and check that the request follows the round's published policy. For A-44 that meant one line naming the missing fiscal-sponsor letter and why it was needed.
Can applicants revise proposals after the deadline?
That depends on your published rules. Clarifying existing evidence, such as sending a letter that already exists, is different from improving a proposal, such as adding a new partner or raising the request. Apply one policy to every applicant and record any approval or exception.
Should AI send clarification messages automatically?
AI can flag the gap and draft the message from the record. A person should check the source, the need for the request and the policy before it is sent. A generated message must not invent a requirement, suggest an award decision or imply the applicant is at fault.
When is a clarification resolved?
When a reviewer has read the response, linked it to the application without overwriting the original, and recorded a conclusion and next action. A reply arriving does not by itself mean the evidence is sufficient.
How can we tell whether burden has fallen?
Compare similar rounds on the share of applications needing clarification, repeated requests, time from response to review, and applicant feedback. Check evidence quality at the same time; fewer requests alone could mean less checking rather than a clearer form.