The same project, funded twice — caught before payment
A subsidy authority that suspected some projects were being claimed under two different programmes, but reviewed each application in isolation.
Who they are.
A subsidy authority running several aid schemes in parallel, each with its own case officers and its own queue. A beneficiary can legitimately apply to more than one — which also means the same project can be claimed twice.
Anonymised at the client’s request. Client names are never disclosed without written permission.
What had to be solved.
Each application was assessed in isolation. Nothing compared an incoming file against applications already funded, so a beneficiary could present the same invoices to two schemes, and recovering paid funds cost more than the grant itself.
What success looked like.
- Compare every application against everything already funded
- Check the beneficiary and the site against official registries
- Catch a duplicate before award, not during a recovery audit
What Ceertia does here.
Cross-scheme checking on receipt: beneficiary identity, site address and invoice references are compared across the whole portfolio and against official registries. A match is flagged with both application references cited as evidence.
Flag any beneficiary, address or invoice already funded under another application in the portfolio.
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.
A duplicated project was blocked before payment. The check runs before award now, which turns an expensive recovery process into a refusal that costs nothing to make.
- Nothing compared an incoming application against applications already funded.
- A beneficiary could present the same invoices to two programmes.
- Recovering paid funds cost more than the grant itself.
- Each application is cross-checked against the whole portfolio and official registries.
- A reused invoice or address is flagged with both application references.
- The check runs before award, not during a recovery audit.
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 regional grant programme receiving most of its applications in the final ten days before a statutory deadline.
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.