Grant Screening for Advisory Teams

A new funding call lands in an advisory team's inbox. Before anyone can decide whether to pursue it, someone has to retrieve the client profile and read the eligibility rules again. That repeated preparation is a useful place to test an assistant, provided the adviser can check what it returns.

GrantAI compares calls with an organisation profile and prepares initial working materials. The adviser remains responsible for the funding strategy and for deciding whether an application is worth pursuing. The useful output is a reviewable comparison, rather than an unexplained score.

Keep the client profile separate from the call

A company's sector and project plans should not have to be reconstructed whenever a new PDF arrives. Maintain a profile, recording which information has been checked and what is missing. An outdated company-size classification can undermine screening even when the call itself has been read correctly.

Start a pilot with agreed sources and a defined type of client. Testing one recurring task gives the team a clearer basis for a decision than a promise to cover every funding programme.

A useful comparison can leave eligibility unresolved

Here is an illustrative example. It describes neither an actual call nor a client result, and it is not a measured GrantAI output.

Suppose a manufacturer plans to introduce a new process. In this example, a call accepts small and medium-sized businesses carrying out projects in a specified region. The client profile records the registered office but lacks the project location and the information needed to establish company size.

A working note for the adviser could read as follows.

The planned activity fits the described topic. The registered office does not establish whether the project meets the regional condition. Request the implementation location and check company size against the call's rules. Eligibility remains unconfirmed.

The note distinguishes a thematic match from formal eligibility and gives the adviser a specific question to resolve. For a real call, the review should also include the relevant passage from the conditions so that the comparison can be checked.

Draft only after the team chooses to proceed

A client may qualify formally and still lack the finance or capacity to carry out the project. That assessment belongs to the adviser, not to the matching step.

Once the team selects a call, the assistant can prepare a first project description or an attachment checklist. Each draft needs checking against the programme rules and the client's actual plans. Approval and submission remain human responsibilities.

Judge the pilot by the work it leaves behind

Record how your team screens calls before starting the pilot. Look at preparation time and at the supporting information advisers have to request or correct. Use the same basis when reviewing pilot outputs. Faster preparation provides little benefit if it creates a longer expert review.

A demo helps define the scope. It does not establish what your team will save. To explore a GrantAI pilot, bring a client profile and a call you are currently assessing. That gives both sides something concrete to inspect and makes the boundary between preparation and professional judgment visible.