Reviewer moderation
Confirm, adjust, and lock the evaluation draft once the evidence trail and scoring logic are ready for committee use.
Reviewer
Recommendation band
Moderated score
45
AI draft: 45
Overall reviewer note
Score moderation grid
| Subcriterion | AI draft | Reviewer score | Evidence | Reviewer note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Organisational experience and track record Institutional capacity Reviewer confirmed | 8 / 10 The team shows relevant delivery history and sector knowledge, though institutional scale is still limited. | No linked evidence excerpt yet. | ||
Financial capacity Institutional capacity Reviewer confirmed | 7 / 10 Basic financial stability is visible, but working capital resilience is not fully evidenced. | No linked evidence excerpt yet. | ||
Innovation and added value Relevance and innovation Reviewer confirmed | 9 / 10 The product addresses a concrete bottleneck with a practical operational model and a clear user case. | Concept note · Page 8 The proposed system replaces paper-based traceability with low-cost digital batch logging. | ||
Feasibility and work plan Methodology and implementation Reviewer confirmed | 7 / 10 The work plan is coherent and sequenced, but milestone dependency handling is light. | No linked evidence excerpt yet. | ||
Budget coherence and justification Financial plan and cost efficiency Reviewer confirmed | 8 / 10 Most cost lines map well to activities and outputs. | Budget · External services tab Technical advisory support line is not broken down by activity or unit assumption. | ||
Long-term sustainability Impact, inclusiveness, and sustainability Reviewer confirmed | 6 / 10 The commercial logic is plausible but still early. | No linked evidence excerpt yet. |
Red flag moderation
External services line lacks unit logic
One advisory services line is bundled and makes reviewer verification harder.
Partnership evidence is still provisional
The proposal names processing partners, but only one letter of support appears signed.