A finding should show its reasoning.

A worked example of the reporting method planned for proposal evaluation: requirement, evidence, finding, implication and revision.

Illustrative example. The call conditions and proposal passages below are fictional. This is a demonstration of analytical reasoning, not an assessment of a real grant, applicant or project.

Three different problems require three different responses.

An eligibility gap, an incoherent delivery model and an unsupported cost are not interchangeable findings. A useful evaluation explains the distinction and the evidence needed to resolve each.

Finding 01

Access condition

Illustrative requirement: The hypothetical call requires the lead applicant to demonstrate an operational presence in the target area.
Proposal evidence: The example proposal describes a national office. It does not identify the target-area team, facilities or delivery arrangement.
Analytical finding: Unverified eligibility condition. The supplied evidence does not establish the required presence; it also does not prove the organisation is ineligible.
Decision implication: Resolve this before investing further in the proposal. A stronger narrative about need would not answer the access condition.
Specific revision: Locate the applicable evidence, confirm which entity must meet the condition and seek donor clarification if the wording is ambiguous.

Finding 02

Programme and budget coherence

Illustrative requirement: The hypothetical assessment criterion asks applicants to explain a feasible delivery model for the proposed reach.
Proposal evidence: The example narrative promises mobile outreach in three locations; the workplan has one team and the budget has no travel provision.
Analytical finding: Material inconsistency between the proposed response, delivery capacity and resource model. This is a quality finding, separate from applicant eligibility.
Decision implication: The proposal does not yet show how the promised coverage can be delivered. The gap could affect feasibility under the stated criterion.
Specific revision: Reconcile team capacity, travel assumptions, location sequence and costs. Revise reach if the available resources cannot support the intended model.

Finding 03

Financial interpretation

Illustrative requirement: The hypothetical call specifies eligible-cost conditions. No assessment weights have been published in this example.
Proposal evidence: The example budget includes a comparatively high coordination cost, but the supporting assumptions have not been supplied.
Analytical finding: The amount alone does not establish ineligibility. The review needs the relevant cost rule, allocation basis and supporting explanation.
Decision implication: Request evidence and assess the cost against the actual rule. Do not turn an unexplained amount into an invented compliance failure or score.
Specific revision: Document the cost basis, identify the applicable provision and reconcile the narrative and budget. Keep the finding unresolved until the evidence supports a conclusion.

In a commissioned analysis

The intended report would identify the actual document version and passage for each requirement, the proposal section or annex reviewed and any unresolved information. Published donor criteria would control the comparison; weights would be used only where supplied by the donor.

See the planned evaluation scope

Analysis / Enquiries

Discuss a proposal evaluation.

Describe the call and the decision you need to make. Salient One can review the requested scope. The paid products remain in development; an enquiry is not an order.

Make an analysis enquiry