How Grant Fund screens funding opportunities
Grant Fund begins with a practical question.
Grant Fund combines structured programme data, source mapping, rule-based checks, retrieval systems and AI-assisted analysis to help answer that question before you invest substantial time in an application.
The result is decision support. Official eligibility is determined by the relevant funding authority.
We start with official programme material
Our primary evidence layer is information published by the organisations responsible for the funding programme. Depending on the programme, this may include:
- Official call text.
- Work programmes, annexes and programme manuals.
- Guides for applicants and published templates.
- Official FAQs and correction notices.
- Official funding portals.
Where technically available, Grant Fund keeps references to the source behind important programme conditions so users can return to the original material and verify the rule themselves.
Your Passport provides the company side of the comparison
A programme rule becomes useful when it can be compared with structured information about your company. Your Passport provides that second layer. Grant Fund currently uses 7 core screening dimensions .
Where your Passport does not satisfy one of them, we say so in those words: our current screen flags a mismatch on this dimension.
We screen before we rank
A programme can look highly relevant to a startup's technology or sector and still be unusable because of geography, entity type, company stage, consortium structure or another published restriction. Grant Fund therefore screens for identifiable blockers before treating an opportunity as a useful route. This makes the distinction between relevance and actionability.
Fit and readiness are different questions
Passing the current screening layer does not mean an application is ready. For opportunities that survive the initial screening, Grant Fund may identify additional readiness gaps such as documents, evidence, compliance items, partner commitments and narrative inputs.
Important conclusions should be traceable
A useful decision-support system should allow important conclusions to be checked. Where source traceability is available, Grant Fund links important programme conditions back to the official material from which they were derived.
Before committing substantial resources to an application, relying on a deadline, forming a consortium, engaging external advisors or making another consequential decision, users should review the current official programme information directly. Verification against the official source is part of the intended workflow.
Where automation and AI fit
Grant Fund combines rule-based processing, deterministic screening, retrieval, source matching, AI-assisted processing and, where applicable, human-review workflows. In more detail, that means:
- Rule-based processing and deterministic screening.
- Retrieval systems and source matching.
- AI-assisted extraction and classification.
- Internal classification logic.
- Quality-control and human-review workflows.
The mix can differ by feature, source and programme. AI-assisted systems can omit information, misinterpret a condition, mistranslate text, infer incorrectly or classify information incorrectly. Official programme material remains the reference point for consequential decisions. Some workflows may include human review, which applies where provided by the relevant workflow or service configuration.
Our AI Processing Notice describes this in the terms the legal package uses.
Programme information changes
Funding programmes change over time. Calls open and close. Deadlines move. Annexes are amended. FAQs change. Programme status may change after the last dataset refresh. For that reason Grant Fund displays freshness information alongside its programme data.
What the screen can and cannot establish
- Identifiable published eligibility conditions
- Company / programme mismatches
- Observable readiness gaps
- Source-linked programme information
- Current next-step requirements
- Evaluation quality
- Unpublished preferences
- Future programme changes
- Legal or tax conclusions
- Final funding outcomes
Your company data matters to the result
The quality of the screen depends on the quality of the company information in the Passport. Users should keep Passport information current when material facts change —jurisdiction, entity type, company stage, headcount, revenue, technology readiness, ownership, sector, and consortium status and other relevant company facts.
For sensitive technical information, users should use the product in accordance with the security guidance we publish.
Corrections
Grant Fund maintains a correction path for programme data and Outputs. If a programme condition, deadline, source or fit result appears incorrect, users can report it through support. Grant Fund may correct, reclassify, regenerate or withdraw Outputs when new information or errors are identified.
Grant Fund is built to reduce the cost of deciding whether an opportunity deserves your team's time. We structure the information, screen what can be screened, show what can be traced to source material and make the decision path easier to inspect. The final decision remains with the user.