Federal grant screening that traces every finding to the application
Program officers face reviewer burnout, audit obligations, and new scrutiny of artificial intelligence (AI) in funding decisions, all at once. Cemented AI runs the deterministic checks the same way every time, and every flag quotes the proposal.
A declined applicant can ask why. Give them a reason that points to the page it came from.
Eligibility and conflict checks that run identically every time
Eligibility, completeness, required attachments, budget arithmetic, and a criterion-by-criterion pass run as code, not as a model guess. The same proposal produces the same disposition every run. A re-review or an appeal lands where the first pass did.
Every flag quotes the proposal
No finding stands on a summary. Each one quotes the application text it came from. The quote is checked against the source. When an applicant or an auditor contests the rationale, the passage is already attached.
A person decides every judgment call, on the record
The agent never resolves a subjective criterion alone. Any judgment call routes to a reviewer with the rubric criterion and the quoted proposal text in front of them. The decision and reasoning are recorded. The panel's rationale traces to a named human, not to a model.
Gaps are flagged, not filled in
If a proposal doesn't address a criterion, Cemented AI marks the gap. It won't invent a passage to cover it. A missing answer reads as missing, which is what a defensible review needs.
An audit trail built for federal scrutiny
Every disposition traces to the rule that produced it or the person who decided it. Deterministic checks log their inputs and outcomes. Human calls log the criterion, the quoted text, and the rationale. The record holds up to an inspector general or an appeal months later.
Common questions
- How does this fit scrutiny of AI in automated decisions?
- Routine dispositions come from deterministic code, not a model, so they reproduce exactly. A person makes every subjective decision, with the criterion and quoted text recorded. No subjective call is left to the model alone, which is the line responsible-AI guidance tends to draw.
- Does the AI decide who gets funded?
- No. Cemented AI disposes of deterministic checks like eligibility and budget arithmetic. Every judgment call routes to a human reviewer who decides on the record. The agent assembles evidence and runs the rules. People make the subjective calls.
- Can a declined applicant or auditor see why a proposal was flagged?
- Yes. Every finding quotes the proposal passage it came from, and the quote is checked against the source. Human judgment calls carry the reviewer's recorded rationale, so the reason is contestable and sourced.
- Is the screening reproducible across review cycles?
- The deterministic checks are. Eligibility, completeness, attachments, and budget math produce the same result on the same proposal every run. That's what makes a re-review or an appeal defensible.
- Does it connect to your submission system?
- Connectors into systems like Submittable, Fluxx, or Foundant are an Enterprise conversation today, not a self-serve feature. Write to [email protected] to talk through your stack.
- How do you get started?
- Schedule a walkthrough with a sample funding opportunity and a handful of proposals. Write to [email protected] to set it up for a federal or state panel.
Give your panel a record that survives the audit
Schedule a walkthrough with a real funding opportunity and a few proposals.