A concept note gives reviewers that early decision. It connects a bounded problem statement, a strategic approach, and an intended objective, with the questions that need investigation. Make clear what you want agreement to develop further. A detailed funding request would be premature if the problem and approach are still unsettled.
The original fictional example below compares a wording-focused investigation with an extra evening service. It asks which concept deserves further design work, without inventing demand, beneficiaries, or a delivery budget.
State the evidence at its actual scale
The fictional community-service team's note N1 identifies an ambiguity in the posted eligibility wording: “Local applicants may attend,” with no explanation of what “local” means.
That supports a documented wording question. It does not establish how many people are affected, whether people have been unable to attend, or whether transport or session timing is a barrier. Those remain gaps in the supplied record.
A suitable initial problem statement is:
The posted eligibility wording leaves “local applicants” undefined. The team needs to establish what the service intends that term to mean and whether intended readers can understand the revised explanation.
MCC's concept-note guidance separates early agreement about a core problem, broad approach, and objective from the later development of detailed projects. It also describes review that may request clarification or stop an unsupported concept. We apply that early-design principle here; MCC's program eligibility and submission rules do not govern this exercise. Read the concept-note guidance.
Write a complete early concept
| Element | Working concept A |
|---|---|
| Core problem | Eligibility wording in N1 contains an undefined term. |
| Evidence | The supplied notice itself; no participant findings or demand estimate. |
| Intended objective | Intended readers can understand whether the stated eligibility applies to them. |
| Strategic approach | Clarify the intended eligibility with the service owner, draft an explanation, and investigate reader understanding. |
| Population | Intended readers; their characteristics and the extent of the issue still need investigation. |
| Alternative | Extra evening service, proposed but not yet justified by timing evidence. |
| Request now | Review whether to investigate the wording problem and develop the approach further. |
| Questions before design | What does the service intend “local” to mean? Who needs to use the notice? What reader evidence should be gathered? |
The objective describes a desired change. It does not claim that a rewrite will achieve it. A reader check is part of the proposed investigation, with its method and participants still to be planned.
Compare the alternative without dismissing it
Concept B proposes an additional evening service to improve access. That could address a timing problem, but the supplied packet has not established one.
The review question for B is therefore different: what evidence shows that current timing prevents intended users from attending, and what other approaches should be considered? Without that evidence, developing a full evening-session plan would commit design effort to an assumed barrier.
Concept A is closer to N1's documented issue, but it also needs clarification and investigation. The comparison does not automatically approve A or reject B. It tells reviewers what is supported, what is assumed, and which question belongs with each approach.
Separate the concept decision from delivery planning
At this stage, request agreement on the problem to investigate and the approach to explore. Preserve any unresolved questions that could change that choice.
Later design may need a delivery scope, staffing arrangements, resources, costs, schedule, and an evaluation approach. Their absence here is not permission to fabricate them. If a real reviewer requests those details now, follow that review's actual requirements and explain which information is still unavailable.
In the example, switch between the concept-stage view and the later-proposal view. Inspect each approach's link to the evidence, then reveal its distinct clarification questions. Use the blank scaffold for a problem, source, objective, approach, alternative, and review request. Keep discussion notes across views and confirm before resetting them. Nothing in the worksheet grants approval or assesses a funder's eligibility rules.
Copy this prompt to frame an early concept
Create a complete self-contained HTML concept-note review worksheet.
My coreproblem: [boundedstatement]. Actual evidence: [sources/limits].
Objective: [desiredchange]. Strategicapproaches: [options]. Requestnow:
[agreement/investigation sought]. Gaps: [questions]. No invented demand,
beneficiaries, rootcause, budget, award, or implementation commitment.
Include a separate fictional community advice-service case. N1 posted
eligibility says “Local applicants may attend” without defininglocal.
Only wordingambiguity documented; traveltiming/demand/population scale
unresearched. ConceptA clarifyintendedeligibility with owner, draft
explanation, investigate readerunderstanding. Objective intendedreaders
can understand statedeligibility; no proveneffect. ConceptB extraevening
service assumes a timingbarrier notestablished. Keep both approaches,
evidence links and differentreviewquestions visible. Ask whether to
investigate/develop concept, not funddelivery or automaticallyapproveA.
Show complete problem/evidence/objective/approach/populationunknown/
alternative/request/questions record. Compare conceptstage with later
proposal details: scope/staff/resources/cost/schedule/evaluation not
supplied. No funderscore or generalizedMCCrules. Allow approachinspection,
questionreveal, blankscaffold, named missingproblem/evidence feedback,
notes retained across views/validation, confirmed reset.
Use labeled keyboard-accessible controls, visible focus, system fonts
at least16px, readable360px layout without horizontal scrolling, inline
CSS/JavaScript, no dependencies. Return complete HTML.
Ask reviewers to settle the next investigation
Share the prepared concept in NOS with the service owner and ask them to examine the problem statement before the preferred approach. If the wording implies a travel barrier the evidence never established, directly revise that visible sentence back to N1's ambiguity. The team can then decide what it needs to learn before designing the service change.