Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/field-guides/grant-dossiers/prerequisites/

field guide / candidate

# Grant dossiers — prerequisites

The distinct prerequisites record for Grant dossiers. This page is proposal-only.

Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate**

## Record status

**Record ID**: field-guide:grant-dossiers

**Parent lifecycle**: candidate

**Page lane**: plan

**Lane lifecycle**: proposed

**Owner**: Tilly

**Owner role**: Not separately recorded

**Owner status**: Not separately recorded

**Qualification result**: NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

**Working browser surface:** [Field guides — documentation](<https://guthlabs.ai/docs/field-guides/>) — Inspect the guide and persist local checkpoints. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held.

## Entry evidence and required records

Before the procedure starts, an operator must identify the source, owner, scope, and required records below. Missing evidence holds the guide.

- source-labelled grant opportunity record

- grant dossier project record

- evidence records with source locator and SHA-256 where available

- draft narrative or response records

- deadline and workback to-do records

- review and reconciliation notes

- approval receipt record

## Intended operators and ownership

- Tilly

- grant research and drafting agents

- independent reviewers

- evidence reviewers

- human approvers

Being listed as an intended operator does not grant execution or publication authority.

## Conditions that hold the guide before entry

- A grant name or related job may be mistaken for proof that an opportunity is active, applicable, eligible, or qualified.

- Copied requirements can lose source context, version, cutoff time, or amendment history.

- Unsupported narrative claims may enter drafts through paraphrase or stale evidence.

- Conflicting sources may be silently reconciled instead of preserved and escalated.

- An internal workback date may be mistaken for the funder's deadline.

- Local approval may be mistaken for external submission or funding approval.

- Prototype routes may be mistaken for connected production features.

- Sensitive application material may be placed in an unapproved file or visibility surface.

- Accessibility failures may hide status, deadlines, errors, or held states.

## Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

- `source_record:field-guide:grant-dossiers`

- `agents/index.html#tilly`

- `Observed native contract: Notebook collections and lifecycle`

- `Observed native contract: Notebook deadlines and workback payload`

- `Observed native contract: provenance, canonical IDs, source locators, SHA-256, revisions, and attachments`

- `Observed native contract: PointGuard context surface and specialist-app record ownership`

- `Observed app routes supplied for Guth Hub, PointGuard, Notebook, Business, and related review surfaces`

- `Allowed verified-instrument directory supplied; no instrument selected because this dossier procedure has no demonstrated calculation requirement`