Workflow
Organize Grant Budget Assumptions for Expert Review
Make your grant budget easier to review by connecting each proposed cost to evidence, a project activity, and the question that still needs an answer.
- Audience
- Business owners, founders and advisers preparing capital applications
- Products
- Aurora, Documents, Tasks
- Prerequisites
- Actual budget guidance, Approved proposed-cost sources, Project plan, Responsible finance reviewer
- Expected outcome
- Assumption-to-evidence budget pack and reviewer questions
- Approval boundary
- Finance and subject experts decide treatment; Aurora organizes evidence only
Give every proposed cost an explanation and a source
Prepare a grant budget review pack by connecting each proposed cost to a project activity, its supporting evidence, and the applicable instruction you need to check. Aurora can organize the pack and highlight unresolved assumptions. Your finance lead and relevant advisers decide how the actual costs and rules apply.
This recipe does not calculate your accounts, certify allowable costs or replace a grant accountant. It makes the questions and evidence easier to review.
Use a budget evidence register
| Proposed item | Evidence | Assumption to verify | Review owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project personnel | Approved role, effort estimate and costing source | Period, calculation basis and applicable instruction | Finance and project lead |
| Equipment or service | Current quote and project use | Classification, timing and required approval | Finance and technical owner |
| Partner work | Scope and written cost estimate | Partner role and required budget treatment | Partner and authorized applicant |
| Match or contribution | Supported source and proposed timing | Whether the call requires or permits it | Finance and authorized applicant |
These are example review categories, not a declaration that any expense is eligible. The solicitation and applicable award rules control. A business's planned expenditure is not automatically an allowable grant cost.
Assemble the pack in Finta
- Preserve the governing instructions. Save the exact budget form, call version, cost guidance and relevant agency explanations. Record which requirements the reviewer needs to interpret.
- Collect approved evidence. Bring together quotes, work scopes, effort assumptions and costing materials cleared for this review. Remove unnecessary personal payroll or banking information.
- Connect costs to activities. Add the project task or milestone beside each item. A clear link makes it easier to question a cost that is attractive but unrelated to the proposed work.
- Ask Aurora to organize, not certify. Request source references, missing evidence, conflicting dates and questions. Keep math and assumption checks distinct from accounting conclusions.
- Save a review version. Use main chat to create the working document or CSV in Documents. Assign human-owned tasks to obtain missing quotes and resolve review questions.
A prompt that produces better review questions
Organize these proposed grant budget items into a review table. Include activity, cost source, period, assumption, relevant instruction and question for the responsible reviewer. Keep reported figures exactly as supplied and flag inconsistencies. Do not invent rates, classify costs as allowable, choose an indirect-cost method or complete tax/accounting filings. Return a draft evidence pack.
If a source file cannot be read reliably, keep the affected row unverified. For substantial file preparation use main Aurora chat, not the bounded Task-assignment update.
Illustrative result: one quote, two unresolved assumptions
A fictional hardware team includes an external testing quote in a proposed project. The quote describes three services, but the project plan only names two, and the quote's delivery date differs from the planned work period.
The review pack keeps the quote intact and asks: “Which services are in scope?” and “Can the delivery period align with the project?” It does not silently remove a service, change the date or decide grant allowability. The team can now take a focused question to its reviewer instead of circulating a bare total.
This is a synthetic organizational example. It is not a validated budget or a statement about a current award.
Check the reviewer handoff
The receipt contains the named call, budget version, source files, unresolved assumptions, review owners and decisions still required. Reconcile the narrative, work plan and budget after human review. Save which assumptions changed and why.
A reviewer may need to check classifications, calculations, match treatment, rates, procurement requirements or other applicable conditions. Seek the appropriate expertise for the actual award rather than treating an AI-generated checklist as approval.
Keep the process moving when evidence is incomplete
Missing quote: request one with a stated scope and date. Conflicting budget versions: select the approved working version and retain the revision note. Unsupported contribution: ask the responsible party for evidence. Cost treatment unclear: refer the exact instruction and question to the reviewer.
Use the narrative workflow to keep the project story aligned, and the opportunity register to preserve the governing call and contact route. Finta connects preparation and follow-through; the approved budget remains your team's responsibility.