For grantmaking foundations

Screen every grant application for eligibility the same way

Cemented AI runs the eligibility and completeness gate before reviewer time is spent. Tax-exempt status, geographic eligibility, required attachments, and prior-grant compliance get checked identically for every applicant. Each finding points to the exact field. A missing item is flagged, not assumed.

Applications that fail basic compliance shouldn't reach a reviewer's desk. Catch them with the same check, run the same way, every time.

The same eligibility gate for every applicant

Define the rules your foundation already applies: 501(c)(3) status, the counties or countries you fund, the minimum and maximum award, and whether prior reporting is current. The agent checks each application against those rules in deterministic code. The same application gives the same result on the first read and the hundredth. There's no drift between intake staff, and none from one week to the next.

Completeness checked field by field

Required attachments, budget tables, the Letter of Inquiry (LOI), board lists, and signed assurances are confirmed present and parseable. Budget arithmetic is checked the same way for everyone. When a required item is there, the finding quotes the field it came from. When it's absent, that gap is flagged as missing, not guessed at.

A person decides every judgment call

The eligibility gate is mechanical, so most of it runs to a clean yes or no. Some cases need judgment. Say an attachment arrived but doesn't clearly match the requirement. That is never resolved by the model alone. It goes to a person with the rule and the quoted application text attached. The agent does the busywork. People keep the discretion.

Findings you can defend to a declined applicant

Every screening result points to the field or attachment it came from. When an applicant asks why their submission was returned, the answer is a specific quote against a stated rule, or a named document that wasn't attached. There's no flag from a black box. Nothing about eligibility is inferred when the application is silent.

Works on the applications you already collect

Export submissions from your grants platform or upload a folder, and the agent screens 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

Step 1
Define your eligibility rules
Write the rules your intake staff already apply: tax-exempt status, the geography you fund, award limits, required attachments, and prior-grant reporting. The agent uses those rules instead of a generic template.
Step 2
Bring the applications
Upload the submissions or export them from your grants platform. Each screening run is scoped to the set you provide.
Step 3
Deterministic checks run first
Eligibility, completeness, required attachments, and budget arithmetic run identically for every applicant. Each finding quotes the field, and a missing item is flagged as absent.
Step 4
A person reviews the flags
Failed and ambiguous checks are routed to a person with the rule and quoted text attached. The agent proposes. Your staff decides, and the decision is recorded with its evidence.

Common questions

Does it auto-reject ineligible applications?: By default a person makes the call, and for anything the model judges, Cemented AI recommends keeping it that way. Hard rules are different. If an application fails a deterministic criterion you set, like a Form 990 revenue ceiling, you can turn on auto-decline and have the rejection letter generated and sent, since that is a rule and not a judgment. It never auto-approves. Nothing goes out automatically until you enable it.
How does it verify 501(c)(3) or tax-exempt status?: It checks the status the application provides against the rule you set, and quotes the field or attachment it read. It confirms what the applicant submitted is present and matches your requirement. It does not invent a determination when the supporting document is absent. That gap is flagged for a person to resolve.
What happens when a required document is missing?: The check fails and names the specific item, for example a missing audited financial statement or an absent board list. A missing item is reported as missing, not assumed to exist. That's the difference from a model that fills the gap with a guess.
Won't strict screening reject borderline applications unfairly?: The deterministic checks only decide the clear cases. A required attachment is present or it isn't. The budget adds up or it doesn't. Anything ambiguous is routed to a person with the rule and the quoted text attached, so a human handles the borderline call instead of the model.
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 systems like Fluxx, Submittable, and Foundant 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 eligibility rules, or schedule a 30-minute walkthrough on your intake process.