Workflow
Draft a Grant Project Narrative From Your Documents
Give Aurora the call, the project evidence, and the scoring questions. Bring back a useful draft that shows what is supported and what still needs review.
- Audience
- Business owners, founders and advisers preparing capital applications
- Products
- Aurora, Documents, Tasks
- Prerequisites
- Named solicitation and current instructions, Approved source pack, Known factual owners, Verified applicant route
- Expected outcome
- Source-linked project narrative and factual review queue
- Approval boundary
- Human reviewers approve representations; authorized applicant submits externally
Turn project evidence into a useful first draft
Start a grant narrative with a specific solicitation and the evidence you already have. Ask Aurora to map the required questions to your source documents, draft the supported sections, and flag claims it cannot support. Review the narrative against the actual call before using it in the application.
The strongest draft does not simply sound convincing. It answers the funder's questions and lets your team see where each factual statement came from.
Build a question-to-evidence outline first
| Application question | Available evidence | Draft treatment |
|---|---|---|
| What problem will the project address? | Approved research and documented customer need | Specific problem with scope and sources |
| What work will you perform? | Project plan and technical milestones | Proposed activities, not completed results |
| Why can this team do the work? | Approved biographies and relevant work | Actual qualifications, not invented credentials |
| What outcome will be measured? | Measurement plan and stated assumptions | Target and measurement method, not guaranteed impact |
Use the headings and limits in your call, not this generic outline when they differ. Grants.gov directs applicants to the opportunity's instructions and eligibility section. Confirm the applicant and project route before investing in prose.
Prepare the sources Aurora should use
- Save the named call and current instructions, including amendments, evaluation criteria and format limits.
- Select approved project plans, biographies, research, partner statements and supporting records. Identify which are observations, proposed work and assumptions.
- Upload the relevant sources to Documents or select supported context. Confirm the important passages are readable; review scanned or poorly extracted material manually.
- Ask for an evidence map before a full narrative. Correct weak or irrelevant source matches while the structure is still easy to change.
- Draft one section at a time, then ask for a consistency review across objectives, activities, outcomes and proposed budget.
Use a brief that protects the facts
Draft the project narrative for this named solicitation from the supplied approved documents. Follow its questions and word limits. Keep observed results separate from proposed activities and targets. Add source-file references beside material facts. Mark missing evidence as [VERIFY] rather than inventing it. Do not create partner commitments, certifications, statistics, customer quotes or eligibility conclusions. Return a working draft only; do not submit.
Use main Aurora chat for substantial drafting. Once you approve a version for internal review, ask to save it as DOCX or another supported working file in Documents. A generated document is a draft artifact, not agency acceptance.
Illustrative result: a claim that becomes more credible
A fictional sensor company wants to describe a reliability project. Its notes say “This will eliminate failures,” but its available evidence only documents a pilot and a proposed testing method.
| Unsupported draft | Evidence-led revision | Open work |
|---|---|---|
| Our project will eliminate equipment failures. | We propose to test whether the sensor identifies the failure conditions specified in the project plan. | Confirm test conditions, success criteria and supporting pilot evidence. |
| Our partners are committed to deployment. | The supplied partner letter describes interest in the proposed evaluation. | Obtain the exact commitment required by the solicitation, if applicable. |
This synthetic before-and-after example shows a drafting method, not a real agency proposal or performance result.
Review the narrative before it leaves the workspace
Assign factual review to the relevant subject owners: technical work, business statements, partner roles, proposed costs and authorized representations. Check consistency between narrative and forms. Preserve a short change log so later edits do not silently remove an important limit or turn a target into a fact.
The receipt should name the solicitation and version, sources used, sections drafted, unsupported points remaining, reviewers and next actions. “Ready for review” is not “ready to submit.” External submission follows the call's official instructions and the authorized applicant's decision.
Handle common drafting failures
If Aurora supplies an impressive but untraceable statistic, remove it until a source supports it. If a partner statement is ambiguous, ask the partner rather than strengthen it. If the application limit is tight, trim repetition before trimming evidence. If source context is unavailable, retain the evidence map and add the missing material instead of drafting around it.
Next, organize budget assumptions for review and keep the opportunity, deadline and responsible owners connected. See the grant-eligibility guide if the opportunity itself remains uncertain.