Review funding bids before submission

The problem

You've written a funding bid but you're too close to spot the problems. Have you answered every question? Are outcomes clear and measurable? Does the budget add up? Is the logic sound? You submit and get rejected for avoidable mistakes: missing information, unclear theory of change, budget errors, not matching funder priorities. You need fresh eyes but colleagues are busy and deadlines are tight.

The solution

Use Claude or ChatGPT to critique your bid before submission. Paste your bid and the funder's guidance, ask it to challenge your logic, spot gaps in your argument, identify unclear outcomes, flag budget inconsistencies, and question whether you've matched funder priorities. The AI provides the critical external perspective you need when you're too close to your own work - it challenges assumptions, spots weaknesses you've normalised, and asks the questions a sceptical funder would ask.

What you get

A critique of your funding bid: 'Missing sections: Sustainability plan (question 7), Risk mitigation (question 9). Outcome clarity issues: "improve wellbeing" is vague - how will you measure? Budget concerns: Activities budget (£45k) doesn't match narrative (describes £50k programme). Logic gaps: You claim training leads to employment but don't explain how. Funder priorities: They emphasise co-production - you don't mention service user involvement.' You fix issues before submitting.

Before you start

• A complete draft funding bid (even if rough)
• The funder's guidance document and application questions
• Willingness to hear criticism of your bid
• Time before deadline to make improvements
• A Claude or ChatGPT account (paid tier recommended for longer bids)

When to use this

• You're about to submit a significant funding bid and want quality assurance
• You've had bids rejected for avoidable mistakes before
• You don't have colleagues available to review your bid
• You want to check you've addressed all funder requirements

When not to use this

• You haven't written a draft yet - write it first, then get critique
• Your bid contains sensitive funding strategy, partnership negotiations, or confidential financial details and you're using free AI tiers - free services may train on this content, potentially exposing it to competitors (use paid tiers with data protection guarantees)
• You're not willing to make changes based on feedback
• Deadline is in hours and you don't have time to improve - do this with time to act

Steps

1. 1

   Complete your draft bid first

   Don't use AI to write your bid - you know your work, your beneficiaries, what you're trying to achieve. Write it yourself, get it to a point where you think it's ready. That's when critique is most valuable. AI is your quality checker, not your ghost writer.

2. 2

   Get critique on completeness

   Paste your bid and the funder's application questions. Ask: 'Challenge whether I've answered every question in the funder guidance. Which questions are missing or incompletely addressed? Which sections need more detail?' The AI compares what you wrote against what was asked. You might have skipped questions without realising.

3. 3

   Challenge your outcome clarity

   Ask: 'Critique my outcomes. Are they SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound)? Which outcomes are too vague (e.g., "improve wellbeing")? What would make them more concrete and measurable?' Fuzzy outcomes are a common rejection reason. AI spots vagueness you've normalised.

4. 4

   Challenge budget consistency

   Ask: 'Check if my budget is consistent with the narrative. Does the budget total match what's stated? Do the activities described align with budgeted costs? Are there obvious gaps (e.g., staffing mentioned but not budgeted, or budget items not explained in narrative)?' Mismatched budgets suggest poor planning.

5. 5

   Challenge your logic

   Ask: 'Review my theory of change / logic model. Where do I claim A leads to B without explaining how? What assumptions am I making? Where are the logical gaps? What evidence do I provide for my claims?' This is about testing whether your bid makes sense to someone outside your organisation.

6. 6

   Challenge alignment with funder priorities

   Paste the funder's strategy or priorities. Ask: 'How well does my bid align with this funder's stated priorities? Which of their themes do I address? Which priorities am I missing? Where could I strengthen the connection to what they care about?' Funders want to see you've read and understood their goals.

7. 7

   Identify unclear sections

   Ask: 'What's unclear or confusing in this bid? What would a reviewer struggle to understand? What jargon needs explaining? Where do I assume knowledge the reader won't have?' You understand your work intimately - external reviewers don't. AI spots where you've lost clarity.

8. 8

   Get specific improvement suggestions

   Ask: 'For the main issues you've identified, give me specific suggestions for improvement.' Look at its ideas but don't copy them verbatim. Use the critique to improve your bid in your voice, with your deep knowledge of the work. AI shows gaps, you fill them properly.

9. 9

   Make improvements and resubmit for review(optional)

   Revise your bid addressing the issues raised. Then paste the improved version and ask: 'Have I addressed the issues you identified? What's still unclear or problematic?' Iterate until the AI's critique finds only minor issues. Your bid is now stronger than what you would have submitted.

Tools

Resources

Part of this pathway