A grant reviewer that reads every application the same way

A person decides every judgment call

Deterministic checks run the same way for every applicant: eligibility, required attachments, budget arithmetic, and whether the application addresses each criterion. Anything that needs judgment is never scored by the model alone. It goes to a reviewer with the criterion and the quoted passage attached. The agent does the busywork, and people keep the discretion.

Your rubric, applied the same way every time

Define the criteria your reviewers already use. The agent checks each application against that rubric in deterministic code. The same application and the same rubric give the same assessment, on the first read and the hundredth. No drift between reviewers, and none from one week to the next.

Decisions you can defend, quoting the application

Every finding points to the passage it came from. When the board asks why an application advanced, or a declined applicant asks for a reason, the answer is a quote from their own submission against a stated criterion. There's no score from a black box. When an application doesn't address a criterion, that gap is flagged rather than guessed.

Works on the applications you already collect

Export submissions from your grants platform or upload a folder, and the agent reviews from that set. Documents are scoped to your account, and Cemented AI doesn't train frontier models on them. Ask about direct connectors to your grants system for Enterprise.

How a review runs

1. Step 1

   Define your rubric

   Write the criteria your reviewers already apply: eligibility rules, required documents, scoring questions. The agent uses that rubric instead of a generic template.

2. Step 2

   Bring the applications

   Upload the submissions or export them from your grants platform. Each review is scoped to the set you provide.

3. Step 3

   Deterministic checks run first

   Eligibility, completeness, budget math, and a criterion-by-criterion pass run identically for every applicant, each finding quoting the application.

4. Step 4

   A person signs off on judgment

   Every non-deterministic call is routed to a reviewer with the criterion and quoted text attached. The agent proposes; the reviewer decides, and the decision is recorded with its evidence.

Foundations FAQ

Does it auto-reject or auto-approve applicants?

For any decision the model makes, Cemented AI recommends keeping a person in the loop, and a reviewer makes the call with the quoted passage and the criterion in front of them. Deterministic rules are the exception. When an application fails a hard rule you set, like a Form 990 revenue ceiling, you can choose to auto-decline it and send the rejection letter, since that is a rule and not a judgment. It never auto-approves, and nothing goes out automatically unless you turn it on.

How are subjective scores handled?

Anything subjective is treated as a non-deterministic decision, so it's routed to a reviewer rather than scored by the model. The agent attaches the relevant criterion and the quoted text so the reviewer can decide quickly and consistently.

Can it use your own scoring criteria?

Yes. That's the point. You define the rubric your foundation already uses, and the agent applies it the same way to every application. Change the rubric and the checks change with it.

Does it connect to your grants management system?

Not as a self-serve feature today. Most teams export submissions and upload them. Ask about direct connectors to Fluxx, Submittable, and similar systems as part of an Enterprise engagement. Write to [email protected].

How do I get started?

Sign in and upload a handful of recent applications with your rubric, or schedule a 30-minute walkthrough on your own review process.

One deterministic agent, with more to come

What you see here is one Cemented agent: primarily deterministic code that calls a language model only when the work genuinely needs it, so the same inputs produce the same decision and every claim traces back to its source. The same engine extends to the other repetitive, auditable work your team runs, automated on your terms, with a person reviewing and overriding wherever judgment belongs.