Grant review you can trace.
GrantOS supports the part of grantmaking where defensibility matters most: connecting the application, the evidence, the rubric, the score, the reviewer’s judgment, and the report that follows.
Available for controlled evaluation
Not another full-lifecycle grant-management system.
GrantOS is not being positioned as a replacement for application portals, payment systems, CRM, grantee communications, or every downstream grant-administration function. Its focused value is the review and scoring layer: evidence, rules, traceability, contradictions, reviewer action, and certification posture.
For foundations
Make review criteria, evidence, and reviewer judgment easier to align across a funding program.
For government programs
Support structured, reviewable evaluation where decisions may need to be explained across teams and over time.
For evaluators
Keep the relationship between source material, rubric requirements, findings, and reviewer action visible.
One review trail, from source to report.
A grant review is more than a final number. GrantOS is designed to preserve how that number was reached, what evidence supported it, where uncertainty remains, and what a reviewer changed or confirmed.
Evidence before confidence.
Rubric requirements
Criteria, thresholds, priorities, dimensions, and required evidence remain controlled review inputs.
Evidence coverage
Each determination can retain the source identity, location, excerpt or normalized fact, and the rule it supports.
Contradictions
Conflicting or incomplete evidence is disclosed and can hold certification rather than being silently resolved.
Scoring integrity
Completeness, source coverage, contract state, and checksums are part of the certification posture.
Reviewer actions
Assignments, comments, flags, overrides, finalization, and certification remain explicit and auditable.
Report outputs
Structured report projections support review and export while document-format limitations remain visible.
GrantOS supports the reviewer. It does not replace the reviewer.
GrantOS may assist with extraction, normalization, mapping suggestions, missing-evidence detection, contradiction surfacing, reviewer questions, and report drafting. It does not independently determine eligibility, authorize an award, deny an application, or override a reviewer.
A machine result remains a screening aid. Human reviewers retain authority over determinations, overrides, finalization, certification, and consequential funding decisions.
Built for a serious first evaluation.
The local GrantOS core has evidence for contract-based scoring, provenance, contradiction handling, review queues, report projections, security boundaries, and readiness gates. A reported managed-pilot checkpoint also verified core health, storage, jobs, domain checks, identity configuration, and PDF-engine availability.
Review mechanics
Scoring, evidence mapping, certification posture, reviewer actions, and audit records are implemented and tested in the local core.
Document breadth
Document and OCR support varies by format and environment. Structural or partial paths are not presented as universal production support.
Controlled evaluation
Backup/restore, production deployment, accessibility, worker workload, and external validation remain environment-dependent.
Evaluate the review process before expanding the system.
Bring an existing rubric and a completed or representative application. Do not upload confidential grant materials through the public form. We can establish a secure evaluation process after initial contact.