Grant Evaluation Release-Gate Toolkit
Collection
Fictional grant-evaluation gates. I work on DDScore at Playful Pixels Oy. Funding decisions stay human-owned; evaluator context is linked below. • 4 items • Updated
field stringlengths 9 22 | type stringclasses 3
values | allowed_values stringlengths 9 149 | meaning stringlengths 32 75 |
|---|---|---|---|
review_id | string | unique non-empty identifier | Stable identifier for one review item |
review_layer | enum | commercial_evidence|programme_policy | Keeps commercial evidence separate from programme policy and accountability |
review_group | enum | case|team|market|delivery|governance|outcomes|economics|eligibility|policy_fit|public_value|impact|budget|compliance|fairness|final_review | Workflow group for the review item |
analysis_dimension | enum | business_idea|offering|team|market|competitors|technology_ip|scalability|legal_regulatory|exit|presentation|financials|fundability|programme_specific | Commercial analysis category or explicit programme-specific layer |
programme_criterion_id | string | published criterion identifier or blank | Stable identifier from the programme's current rubric |
criterion_text | string | exact current programme wording | Criterion definition shared across reviewers |
criterion_version | string | version identifier or date | Rubric version used for the review |
evidence_state | enum | supported|partial|missing|conflicting|stale|not_applicable | Current state of the cited evidence under the recorded criterion |
evidence_ref | string | internal URI path or redacted reference | Pointer to the reviewed artefact |
evidence_date | date | ISO 8601 date or blank | Date represented by the evidence |
reviewed_at | date | ISO 8601 date or blank | Date the reviewer assessed this record |
reviewer_role | string | role or pseudonymous internal identifier | Accountable reviewer for this record |
confidence | enum | high|medium|low|not_assessed | Review confidence based on the recorded material |
gap_or_contradiction | string | specific gap conflict or blank | Named reason the evidence is not fully supported |
clarification_request | string | specific request or blank | Next evidence item or answer required from the applicant |
policy_fit_note | string | programme-specific judgement or blank | Policy context kept outside the commercial evidence layer |
human_decision | enum | unreviewed|proceed|clarification|ineligible|panel_review|not_applicable | Separate accountable human workflow decision |
decision_rationale | string | free text | Reason recorded by the accountable evaluator or panel |
Grant Application Evidence Review Register
Grant applications are easier to compare when every review item stays attached to the same criterion definition, version, evidence, date, state, reviewer and human decision. This open CSV resource gives public funding and grant evaluators a 20-item register for a consistent, documented first pass.
The first twelve rows organise commercial evidence. The final eight keep programme-specific policy, eligibility, public-value and accountability review outside that commercial layer. Programme rules differ. Replace the starter wording with the call's published criteria, rubric and current version before use.
Files
grant-application-evidence-review-register.csvcontains twenty blank review items in themissingandunreviewedstates.fictional-example.csvdemonstrates all six evidence states using synthetic applicant and programme data.data-dictionary.csvdefines the eighteen fields and their allowed values.LICENSE.mdcontains the CC BY 4.0 licence notice.
Evidence States
supported: the cited evidence supports the criterion under the recorded definition and is current for this review.partial: some required support exists, but a named part is absent.missing: no reviewable evidence reference is recorded.conflicting: two or more reviewed sources disagree.stale: the evidence falls outside the selected review window.not_applicable: a named reviewer has recorded why the item does not apply.
An evidence state is not an award decision. human_decision and
decision_rationale keep the accountable evaluator or panel decision separate.
Suggested Workflow
- Copy the blank register into the organisation's protected case system.
- Replace every starter criterion with the call's exact published wording, rubric reference and current version.
- Keep confidential applicant material out of a public copy. Use internal references or properly redacted artefacts.
- Use one shared definition and version across reviewers. Duplicate the rows per reviewer when inter-reviewer comparison is required.
- Record a specific gap or clarification request for every state that is not supported.
- Keep commercial evidence, programme policy fit and the final human decision separate through the whole process.
Limits
This register does not verify evidence, decide eligibility, rank applicants, award funding, calculate a DDScore or replace policy assessment, procurement or legal review, an accountable evaluator, a panel or full due diligence. The fictional example is synthetic and contains no real applicant, company, reviewer or personal data.
For a separate commercial-viability first pass, DDScore turns submitted private-company materials into a structured 0–100 Due Diligence Score and full written report across 12 dimensions. It checks relevant claims against current public sources and shows confidence and gaps. The evaluator remains responsible for policy fit and the final decision.
Disclosure: I work on DDScore at Playful Pixels Oy.
- Downloads last month
- 48