[Submit, wait, or do not apply, in plain language]
[Any limitation that changes the submission decision. Delete this sentence if none.]
- [Immediate reason from the executive conclusion]
- [Next reason]
Hard-gate check
Problems serious enough that they are never averaged into a score. One item, one category. Do not use the method's trigger-list numbers as labels. Passed [n]. Failed [n]. Unresolved [n]. Not checked [n]. Not applicable [n]. These add up to the checks attempted.
Confirmed disqualification
-
[Item title, or delete this card and write None.]
[What the published rule says, and the fact that already breaches it.]
Correctable submission blocker
-
[Item title]
[What can still be corrected before submission.]
Unresolved mandatory check
-
[Item title]
[What is still open, and the finite way to close it.]
Non-blocking improvement
-
[Item title]
[What would improve the draft and does not itself change the verdict.]
This funder's criteria
The review's reading of the funder's published assessment criteria, not the funder's mark. No total unless the written report itself shows one. Eligibility rules stay in the hard-gate check unless the funder has also published them as assessment criteria.
Green: met as the application standsAmber: addressed, with a gap an assessor would noticeRed: not met, or a material weakness
[Published criterion]
[One or two sentences. Name the basis if the row is an inferred fallback.]
Who this funder has supported
Taken from organisations the funder has published as funded. Not a score, and not a prediction of an award. The full list sits in the written report.
[Year or round]
[Page and date fetched. Or: no published list found.]
[Short pattern]
[Kinds of organisations, places and activities. Where no list was found, say that here.]
[Question to strengthen]
[Where this application sits inside the pattern, where it sits outside it, and the single change. Or: no change recommended from this check.]
Independent quality
A separate 0 to 5 yardstick, never combined with the funder criteria above. This is the review's own scale, never the funder's.
0 does not meet the requirement at all1 strong reservations2 some reservations3 meets the requirement adequately4 strong5 exceptional
Each application answer
One row per form question, copied from the written report. Counts are the reviewer's own count. Where the report says the live portal counter is definitive, that counter still is.
| Question | Count | Keep | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Question ID and title] | [Counted n of limit] | [What to keep] | [What to change] |
Work in this order
Fatal items before polish. Taken from the recommended-decision sequence in the written report.
-
[Confirmed disqualifications, then correctable blockers] [The action.]
-
[Then unresolved checks and this funder's criteria] [The action.]
-
[Then quality, evidence, and polish] [The action.]
Find the full report
This dashboard is a summary. The evidence register, the method statement, the organisational-readiness detail and the knowledge diagnostic live only in the markdown file.
[report filename]