Hard-gate check
Problems serious enough that they are never averaged into a score.
Request £9,800 against a maximum of £8,000 (disqualification). Sessions already running since January (disqualification). Stated total £9,800, lines add to £10,600, coordinator narrative implies £15,600 (correctable blocker). Companies House not attempted (unresolved).
Layer 1 · this funder's criteria
Green: met. Amber: addressed with a gap. Red: not met. Reviewer's reading, not the funder's mark.
| Criterion | Rating | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Need | Amber | Library cafe closure is concrete. Scale of need is asserted. |
| Involvement of people affected | Red | Listening is not the same as shaping the design. |
| Realistic delivery | Red | Already started, broken budget, CIC a few months old. |
Overall Layer 1 position: Red.
Layer 2 · independent quality
The review's own 0 to 5 scale. Separate from the funder's criteria.
| Dimension | Score | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence and specificity | 2 | 2,000 unique beneficiaries is precise and unsupported. |
| Narrative logic | 2 | Already-started sessions against the funder's exclusion. |
| Completeness | 3 | Each extract question has an answer. |
| Drafting compliance | 2 | Request and start date sit outside published rules. |
| Tone and voice | 3 | Plain, with a generic credibility line. |
Required actions
- Bring the request inside £2,000 to £8,000, or stop.
- Recast already-started activity against the exclusion.
- Make the budget add up.
- Replace or source the 2,000 figure.
- Describe how people affected shaped the design.