Direct answer: A source-linked prospect brief that separates verified public facts, approved relationship context, open questions, and a human-owned next research or relationship action.
Who this workflow is for
Nonprofit development teams, Prospect researchers, Major gift officers, Foundation relations teams. Use it when relationship context is spread across approved records, communication, meetings, and documents, but the final judgment still belongs to a person.
Execution mode and prerequisites
Evidence-first research recipe. Aurora can search available public sources and organize permitted context, but a person owns the research question, source selection, identity resolution, interpretation, data minimization, and every consequential next step.
- A named person or organization and a precise fundraising research question
- A documented legitimate purpose and the nonprofit's privacy and prospect-research policy
- Approved public and internal sources with clear access boundaries
- A development professional responsible for identity, relevance, and final use
Inputs, review boundary, and outcome
| Input | What a person verifies | Reviewed output |
|---|---|---|
| Research brief | Correct identity, reason for research, exclusions, and intended decision | Bounded research question |
| Public evidence | Official pages, current programs, public filings, publication dates, and conflicting facts | Source-linked findings |
| Approved relationship context | Owner, prior contact, board or community pathway, preferences, and access | Reviewable fit and next-step questions |
Run the workflow
- Define the named prospect, intended fundraising decision, allowed sources, excluded data, and review owner.
- Resolve the person or organization identity before combining public records or relationship context.
- Collect current public evidence from official pages, published programs, public filings, and other defensible sources.
- Separate verified facts, third-party claims, hypotheses, unknowns, and information that should not be retained.
- Compare the public evidence with the approved CRM and relationship context without inferring capacity, consent, or interest.
- Approve, correct, or discard the brief, then assign one next research or relationship action with an owner and date.
Human approval boundary
A development professional verifies identity, source dates, mission relevance, privacy, communication preferences, and whether each fact is appropriate to use. Public availability is not automatic permission, and Finta does not determine capacity, interest, consent, or willingness to give.
Worked example
A nonprofit is considering a regional foundation for a workforce program. Aurora reviews the foundation's current official priorities, published application guidance, and public tax-exempt record, then combines those findings with the nonprofit's approved note that a board member knows one program officer. The researcher corrects an outdated program name, labels the introduction path as unconfirmed, removes an irrelevant personal detail, and assigns a board-member context check before any request is drafted.
Expected review receipt
- The research subject, purpose, exclusions, and reviewer are recorded
- Verified facts, unknowns, and hypotheses are visibly separated
- Material sources and verification dates can be reopened
- Privacy, preference, conflict, and prior-contact checks are explicit
- The accepted next action has a human owner and date
Decision checklist
- The identity is resolved and similarly named people or organizations are not conflated
- Every material claim has a source and verification date
- Sensitive or irrelevant personal data is excluded
- Mission fit is based on evidence rather than a wealth or proximity proxy
- A prior decline, suppression, conflict, or communication preference is visible
- The next action is a human decision rather than an automated outreach event
Failure states and safe stops
- Identity cannot be resolved confidently
- A material claim lacks current public evidence
- The proposed use conflicts with a donor preference, policy, law, or legitimate-purpose boundary
- Research is drifting into wealth screening, sensitive-trait inference, or unsupported scoring
- The relationship pathway or program fit is being presented as permission or interest
Where Finta helps
In a supported, permissioned setup, Finta can organize the relevant CRM record, relationship history, connected or user-provided evidence, documents, and next-action workspace. Aurora can prepare a recommendation, summary, or draft. A person remains responsible for checking the evidence and approving consequential changes or communication.
Relevant Finta products: Aurora, CRM, Networks, Documents. Relevant integrations: Public web, Gmail, Outlook, Google Drive.
What this workflow does not do
- Finta does not perform wealth screening or determine donor capacity, eligibility, intent, or willingness to give.
- Public-web research can be incomplete, stale, duplicated, or about the wrong person or organization.
- A relationship path is not consent, endorsement, access, or a promise of support.
- The nonprofit remains responsible for privacy, research ethics, retention, charitable-solicitation rules, and professional review.
Sources and review notes
The AFP Code of Ethical Standards emphasizes accurate communications, donor privacy, and protection of confidential donor and prospect information. IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search is one official source for public tax-exempt records. Neither source determines whether a prospect is appropriate or willing to support an organization.
Research reviewed: September 5, 2026. Recheck product behavior, permissions, professional standards, and the human approval boundary before publication and after any material workflow change.