Build your grant proposal around the funder's questions, with an answer, supporting material, and an unresolved item beside each one. The worked template includes a short narrative, a $1,200 budget, and a requirement check that exposes two gaps before submission.
Start with the application instructions
This original fictional example concerns a proposed community reading-orientation program. Its applicant, practice instructions, planning note, and costs are teaching material. They do not describe a real funder or a funded project.
The practice application has four requirements:
| ID | Practice funder question | What the writer needs to supply |
|---|---|---|
| G1 | What community need would the project address, and what source supports it? | A need statement with a traceable source and its limits. |
| G2 | What would you do, deliver, and expect participants to be able to do? | Activities, planned outputs, and intended outcomes. |
| G3 | What would the project cost, and how would you pay for it? | Itemized expenses and proposed income for the same project. |
| G4 | How would you review the work, and where is the required budget worksheet? | An evaluation approach and an attached worksheet. |
For a real application, paste the actual questions and retain their numbering, limits, and requested formats. Candid's proposal-writing guidance emphasizes following the funder's requirements, supporting the community-need statement, including income and expenses, and checking supporting materials.
Use the filled proposal as a working model
Project summary. The applicant proposes four community reading-orientation sessions and requests $1,000 toward a total planned cost of $1,200. A proposed $200 organizational contribution would cover the balance. The sessions would introduce ways to locate reading materials and understand the borrowing steps. The project period, venue, applicant details, and contribution approval remain TO CONFIRM.
G1: Community need and source. Planning note N1 says, “Prepare a proposal for four sessions explaining how to find reading materials and follow the borrowing steps.” This authored practice note establishes the proposed assignment. It does not establish how many community members need the sessions, what barriers they experience, or whether this approach fits their needs. Community evidence and its citation are TO CONFIRM.
G2: Activities, outputs, and intended outcome. Prepare an orientation handout, arrange a suitable venue, and offer four sessions using a demonstration followed by participant practice. The planned output is four delivered sessions. The intended outcome is that participants can locate a suitable reading item and describe its borrowing steps. Attendance, delivery, and participant results would be recorded after the work occurs.
G3: Budget and proposed income. The expense plan below totals $1,200. Proposed income comprises the $1,000 request and $200 organizational contribution. Both amounts are proposed; neither is secured income in this exercise.
G4: Evaluation and attachment. Record sessions delivered and attendance, keeping repeat attendances separate from unique participants. Ask participants to demonstrate locating an item and describing its borrowing steps. The program team still needs to define the task, recording method, and reviewer. The practice instructions also require a separate budget worksheet; that attachment has not been supplied.
These entries give a colleague enough substance to inspect the application. G1 still needs community evidence, and G4 still needs its worksheet. Keep those items visible while the writer develops the proposal.
Check the budget against the same program
| Planned expense | Calculation | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Session facilitation | 4 sessions × $150 | $600 |
| Room use | 4 sessions × $75 | $300 |
| Session materials | 4 sessions × $50 | $200 |
| Handout printing | 1 project allowance × $100 | $100 |
| Total expenses | $1,200 |
| Proposed income | Amount | Current status |
|---|---|---|
| Grant request | $1,000 | Requested in the practice proposal; not awarded. |
| Organizational contribution | $200 | Proposed; approval TO CONFIRM. |
| Total proposed income | $1,200 | $0 difference from planned expenses. |
The four-session narrative and the four-session cost calculations agree. A zero difference means the proposed amounts balance. It does not establish that the costs are allowed by a real funder or that the income is available.
Use the same project period and scope on both sides. If the team changes the number of sessions, revise the related costs and the narrative together. Keep cash and any permitted in-kind contribution separate so the same resource is not counted twice.
Find the missing answer before polishing the sentence
Choose Incomplete draft in the example. Its G1 statement says:
We need $1,000 to buy materials and run four sessions. The community needs this program.
That describes the applicant's resource request and adds an unsupported community claim. The incomplete draft also leaves the G4 attachment out of its application outline.
Choose Aligned review draft. G1 now uses the N1 wording and explicitly identifies the community-evidence gap. G4 includes the worksheet requirement with a “Not supplied” status. The revision makes the application easier to review without pretending those missing materials have appeared.
Select G1 through G4 to trace each question to its exact answer, supporting item, and next action. For G3, inspect both budget tables. For G4, confirm that an evaluation paragraph and a required attachment are separate items: writing the paragraph does not supply the worksheet.
A useful requirement check names the missing item and the next action. “Find a community source that addresses this need” is something a colleague can take on. “Improve the proposal” leaves them guessing.
Copy a prompt for your application
Create one complete self-contained HTML grant-proposal review page.
Actual funder instructions, exact questions, limits, and formats: [PASTE]
Applicant and project facts that may be used: [PASTE]
Community-need evidence, full citations, and limitations: [PASTE]
Activities, planned outputs, intended outcomes, and project period: [PASTE]
Itemized expenses, calculation bases, proposed income, and status: [PASTE]
Evaluation approach and unresolved decisions: [PASTE]
Required attachments and actual availability: [PASTE]
Keep the funder's question IDs. For each question, show its answer,
supporting source or attachment, unresolved item, and next action.
Use only supplied facts. Mark missing information TO CONFIRM.
Do not invent community statistics, participant stories, applicant
credentials, eligibility, approvals, secured income, awards, or results.
Preserve the funder's required submission format separately.
Include this separate original fictional practice application:
Four community reading-orientation sessions; $1,200 planned cost;
$1,000 grant request plus $200 proposed organizational contribution.
All instructions, note N1, applicant scenario, and costs are authored
teaching material. No real funder, award, or delivered program.
Practice questions:
G1: What community need would the project address, and what source
supports it?
G2: What would you do, deliver, and expect participants to be able to do?
G3: What would the project cost, and how would you pay for it?
G4: How would you review the work, and where is the required budget
worksheet?
Use the following complete worked entries:
Summary: propose four sessions about locating reading materials and
borrowing steps. Request $1,000 toward $1,200. Project period, venue,
applicant details, and contribution approval: TO CONFIRM.
G1: authored planning note N1 says, "Prepare a proposal for four
sessions explaining how to find reading materials and follow the
borrowing steps." It supports the planning assignment only. Community
need, prevalence, barriers, and a supporting citation: TO CONFIRM.
G2: prepare an orientation handout, arrange a venue, offer four
demonstration-and-practice sessions. Planned output: four delivered
sessions. Intended outcome: participants can locate a suitable reading
item and describe its borrowing steps. Actual delivery, attendance,
and results are unknown.
G3 expenses: facilitation 4 x $150 = $600; room 4 x $75 = $300;
materials 4 x $50 = $200; printing 1 x $100 = $100. Total $1,200.
Proposed income: grant request $1,000, not awarded; organizational
contribution $200, approval TO CONFIRM. Total $1,200; difference $0.
Keep proposed income separate from secured funds. No in-kind amount.
G4: record delivered sessions and attendance; distinguish repeat
attendances from unique people. Proposed check: locate an item and
describe its borrowing steps. Task, recording method, reviewer:
TO CONFIRM. Required separate budget worksheet: Not supplied.
Show the full four-question application outline and both budget tables.
G1/G2/G3/G4 buttons reveal that question's answer, support, gap, and
next action. Keep selected states clear. Do not hide the full proposal.
Incomplete draft uses G1: "We need $1,000 to buy materials and run
four sessions. The community needs this program." Explain the
unsupported community claim. It also omits the G4 worksheet from its
outline. Aligned review draft restores the N1-based G1 answer with its
evidence gap and adds G4's worksheet as Not supplied. Keep the four
sessions, budget, and proposed-income statuses fixed in both versions.
Neither version receives an approval, readiness score, or award prediction.
Add separate temporary fields: Actual question ID; Draft answer;
Evidence or attachment to obtain; Review owner and next action.
Preserve exact typing when changing question or draft version.
Ask before clearing these four fields. Cancel preserves the notes;
confirmed clear leaves the worked application and selected view intact.
Use labeled native controls, keyboard focus, and text at least 16px.
Keep paragraphs and budget records readable at 360px without horizontal
page scrolling. Inline CSS/JavaScript only; no network, storage,
submission, upload, or fake document export. User entries remain text
and last only in the open page. Return the complete HTML.
Read the generated application against the actual funder instructions. Confirm that every required question and attachment appears, then ask a colleague to check the need statement against its source and the narrative against the budget.
Give a colleague one application to review
A sanitized HTML reading copy in your NOS workspace can keep the questions beside the answers and the items still needed. Ask the reviewer a precise question, such as whether the source supports the community-need paragraph or whether an attachment has been overlooked.
If the need paragraph overstates what a source says, edit that passage directly on the page while retaining its citation and the unresolved question. Save the revision so your colleague can reopen the same link and review the changed wording. Carry the agreed text into the maintained application, and obtain the missing worksheet before submitting in the funder's required format.