Scoring matrix
| Category | Subcriterion | Final score | AI draft | Confidence | Evidence | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Institutional capacity | Organisational experience and track record | 8 / 10 | 8 / 10 | Medium | No linked evidence excerpt yet. | Limited evidence of prior grant-managed delivery. |
| Institutional capacity | Financial capacity | 7 / 10 | 7 / 10 | Low | No linked evidence excerpt yet. | Financial statements need deeper reviewer validation. |
| Relevance and innovation | Innovation and added value | 9 / 10 | 9 / 10 | High | Concept note · Page 8 The proposed system replaces paper-based traceability with low-cost digital batch logging. | No independent pilot benchmark beyond applicant testimony. |
| Methodology and implementation | Feasibility and work plan | 7 / 10 | 7 / 10 | Medium | No linked evidence excerpt yet. | Customer onboarding assumptions could be more explicit. |
| Financial plan and cost efficiency | Budget coherence and justification | 8 / 10 | 8 / 10 | Medium | Budget · External services tab Technical advisory support line is not broken down by activity or unit assumption. | External services line needs sharper justification. |
| Impact, inclusiveness, and sustainability | Long-term sustainability | 6 / 10 | 6 / 10 | Medium | No linked evidence excerpt yet. | Recurring revenue assumptions need testing. |
Rationale style
Organisational experience and track record
Reviewer confirmedThe team shows relevant delivery history and sector knowledge, though institutional scale is still limited.
Financial capacity
Reviewer confirmedBasic financial stability is visible, but working capital resilience is not fully evidenced.
Innovation and added value
Reviewer confirmedThe product addresses a concrete bottleneck with a practical operational model and a clear user case.