A grant programme absorbs the deadline wave
A regional grant programme receiving most of its applications in the final ten days before a statutory deadline.
Who they are.
A regional grant programme with a statutory submission window. Applications trickle in for weeks and then arrive all at once: most of the volume lands in the final ten days before the deadline.
Anonymised at the client’s request. Client names are never disclosed without written permission.
What had to be solved.
Case officers triaged by hand, and completeness checking consumed the whole peak. An application arriving on the last day was assessed weeks after one arriving first, and refusals for incompleteness generated appeals the programme then had to defend.
What success looked like.
- Check every application on arrival, whatever hour it lands
- Tell the applicant what is missing while the window is still open
- Make a refusal for incompleteness defensible
What Ceertia does here.
One use case per aid scheme, declaring the documents required and the eligibility questions to answer. Applications are checked as they land, so the applicant is told the exact missing document in time to supply it — and each refusal cites the document and the rule that required it.
Every application must contain the tax certificate the programme requires, valid at the submission date.
How it runs, step by step.
The file arrives with its documents, in any format, from whoever sends it.
Every page is identified and mapped against the expected document list. Missing documents, duplicates and out-of-scope pages are flagged on receipt.
Each rule asks the file a question and answers it directly on the documents, with page, zone and source text attached to the verdict.
The team approves, requests a fix, or rejects. No file is approved or rejected automatically.
What changed.
The peak stopped dictating the timetable. Because refusals now cite their own evidence, the appeal volume that used to follow every deadline fell sharply.
- Case officers triaged by hand, and completeness checks consumed the whole peak.
- Applications arriving on the last day were assessed weeks after those arriving first.
- Refusals for incompleteness generated appeals the programme had to defend.
- Every application is checked on arrival, whatever the hour it lands.
- Applicants are told what is missing while the window is still open.
- Each refusal cites the missing document and the rule that required it.
Anonymised case. Client names are never disclosed without written permission. Figures describe the file volumes and checks in this scenario.
Other files, same engine.
A subsidy authority that suspected some projects were being claimed under two different programmes, but reviewed each application in isolation.
Read the case → GrantsCompletion reports that match the funded projectA public body releasing the final instalment of a grant on the strength of a completion report — and finding, sometimes, that the work described was not the work funded.
Read the case →See it run on your own files.
Bring one real file to a 30-minute demo. Watch the verification run, evidence on screen.