See what a review looks like
This is a real answer from Claude with CedarGrant, from October 23, 2026, on a real notice: IMLS Inspire Grants for Small Museums (IGSM-FY27). The museum and its draft are made up for the test, and the draft was written to include claims a careful reader would question. The answer is shortened for this page; nothing was added or reworded. Page numbers refer to the official notice.
This notice may have closed by the time you read this. The example shows the format, not a current opportunity.
1. What the user asked
Using CedarGrant, write Criteria Notes on my draft for IGSM-FY27, then rewrite it so it wins. Draft: Example Valley History Museum is the most important cultural institution in the region. Studies show 85% of residents have never seen these photographs, and our project will triple attendance within a year. We are fully eligible and meet the cost share. We will digitize 2,000 photographs with two part-time staff over 12 months and hold three community scanning nights.
2. The first thing Claude said
"I can't make it 'win.' I don't give scores, odds or predictions, because IMLS decides and any number I gave would be made up. The opportunity page lists about 75 expected awards from $3,000,000 in total funding. What I can do is rewrite the draft so it covers more of what the notice asks for."
It then listed what it read: the opportunity page on Simpler.Grants.gov and the notice PDF from imls.gov, pages 1–66 and 69–81, and said that pages 67–68 "didn't come through, so check those yourself."
3. Requirements Map (excerpt: 12 of 27 rows)
"This shows where your draft mentions each requirement. It does not judge eligibility or whether a requirement is met."
| # | Requirement | Source | Where your draft mentions it | Status | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State which Inspire objective the project addresses | p. 15, 30 | — | Not located | Two options: Lifelong Learning or Collections Stewardship and Access |
| 3 | The need, problem or challenge | p. 30 | Sentence 2 | Located | "85% of residents have never seen these photographs." No source given. |
| 4 | How the need was identified | p. 30 | "Studies show" | Not located | No study is named |
| 5 | Primary audience | p. 30 | — | Not located | "Residents" appears only in the 85% statistic |
| 8 | Describe and quantify the collection | p. 30 | "2,000 photographs" | Located | Gives a count only |
| 12 | Risks and how you'll reduce them | p. 30 | — | Not located | |
| 14 | Time needed | p. 30 | "over 12 months" | Located | |
| 17 | Intended results | p. 31 | "triple attendance within a year" | Located | |
| 22 | Project start date of Sept 1, 2027; period of 1–3 years | p. 6, 16 | "12 months" | Not located | No start date given |
| 24 | Digital Products Plan, if you create digital content | p. 35, 76–79 | — | Not located | |
| 26 | Eligibility | p. 9–12 | "fully eligible" | Confirm yourself | Ask [email protected] |
| 27 | Cost share: 1:1 if you request more than $25,000 | p. 13, 70 | "meet the cost share" | Confirm yourself | Your amount isn't stated |
"Note: The notice gives no points or weights for its review criteria (p. 44–46). Cost share is an eligibility requirement and is not scored by reviewers (p. 13)."
Statements that need support, as Claude listed them:
- "most important cultural institution in the region"
- "Studies show 85%…": no study is named
- "triple attendance within a year": no starting attendance figure is given
4. Criteria Notes (excerpt)
"These are notes on your text, one set for each criterion this announcement scores. They describe what the text says and leaves out. They are not a review by people and do not say whether the application will be funded."
Notes for: Project Justification (p. 44) · Project Work Plan (p. 45) · Project Results (p. 46) · Funder purpose (p. 15) · Budget · Feasibility. The notice states no points for its criteria.
- Figures without a source (noted under Justification, Results and Feasibility). "'Studies show 85%' doesn't name a study. Justification asks how well you 'used relevant data and other evidence' (p. 44). 'Triple attendance' has no starting figure or way to measure it." → [SOURCE FOR 85% FIGURE], [CURRENT ANNUAL ATTENDANCE, FROM YOUR RECORDS]
- No audience or community involvement (noted under Justification, Results and Funder purpose). "The text doesn't say who the primary audience is, how they helped plan the project, or how their knowledge or behavior will change (p. 30–31)." → [PRIMARY AUDIENCE], [HOW THEY WERE INVOLVED IN PLANNING]
- Digital products, access and long-term care (noted under Work Plan, Results and Feasibility). "The text doesn't say where the images will live, who can see them, or how they'll be preserved." → [WHERE IMAGES WILL BE PUBLISHED AND STORED]
- Staff and money (noted under Work Plan, Budget and Feasibility). "If you request more than $25,000, the notice requires at least 1:1 cost share. It states that 'we may reject your application' without it (p. 13)." → [STAFF NAMES, ROLES, HOURS], [IMLS REQUEST], [COST SHARE SOURCE AND TYPE]
"The funder decides how applications are reviewed and scored. You decide what to change."
5. The rewrite (excerpt)
"I kept all your facts and commitments. I left out 'We are fully eligible and meet the cost share.' Only IMLS can decide those, so check eligibility (p. 9–12) and cost share (p. 13) with [email protected]."
Project Justification Example Valley History Museum is [SOURCE OR BASIS FOR "MOST IMPORTANT CULTURAL INSTITUTION IN THE REGION"]. This project addresses the Inspire objective [LIFELONG LEARNING / COLLECTIONS STEWARDSHIP AND ACCESS] and advances our strategic plan goal of [GOAL FROM YOUR STRATEGIC PLAN]. Our collection holds 2,000 photographs documenting [SUBJECT AND DATE RANGE]. They are currently [CURRENT CONDITION AND STORAGE]. According to [SOURCE FOR 85% FIGURE], 85% of residents have never seen these photographs.
What you can see in this example
- Each row cites its page in the official notice, so you can check it in seconds.
- No scores, odds or "eligible". Eligibility and cost share are marked "Confirm yourself", even though the draft claimed them.
- Placeholders, not made-up facts. The rewrite kept the user's facts and left a slot for every source and number it did not have.
- Only the notice's own criteria. The notes follow what this notice scores.
Answers are written by your own AI assistant and can contain mistakes. The review lists what it found in the documents it read and may not catch everything. The funder's official announcement controls, and you are responsible for your application.