Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/field-guides/grant-dossiers/qualification/ field guide / candidate # Grant dossiers โ€” qualification The distinct qualification 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**: docs_urls **Lane lifecycle**: proposed **Owner**: Tilly **Owner role**: Not separately recorded **Owner status**: Not separately recorded **Qualification result**: NOT RUN ยท held for evidence and human review **Working browser surface:** [Field guides โ€” documentation]() โ€” Inspect the guide and persist local checkpoints. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held. ## Qualification status **Result**: NOT RUN **Disposition**: HELD **Reviewer**: Not recorded **Receipt**: Not recorded This page defines proposed acceptance criteria for the docs_urls lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect. ### Lane-specific instrument aids No verified instrument is assigned to this qualification lane. ## Outcome definitions **Verified**: All stated evidence and acceptance requirements passed for the exact reviewed revision; this still does not authorize deployment or an external effect. **Failed**: One or more deterministic acceptance requirements failed with an inspectable reason. **Needs review**: Evidence or interpretation is incomplete, conflicting, or awaits an identified human reviewer. **Held**: Authority, required evidence, safe execution conditions, or a principal gate is absent. The current record remains NOT RUN / HELD. These definitions describe candidate outcomes only. ## Proposed deterministic acceptance tests Route-resolution and distinct-content checks apply only to the admitted canonical routes in this record. Held source-proposed extensions are non-resolving proposals and are excluded. - Every documented route has distinct content and a unique purpose; no route is a doorway page or keyword variant. - The overview identifies Tilly as the source-record owner agent without claiming deployment, provider connection, customer indexing, publication, or qualification. - A dossier can be traced from its canonical record to evidence, file references, drafts, reviews, approvals, deadlines, and revisions. - Conflicting evidence can be recorded without deletion or silent resolution, and unresolved conflicts visibly produce Needs review or Held state. - Forms expose owner, source locator, provenance, revision, deadline, reviewer, decision state, and accessibility-relevant fields where applicable. - A reviewer can distinguish source-backed claims, interpretation, tentative claims, and held claims from the draft record. - No instrument is presented as qualified unless an exact verified directory slug is recorded; this proposal names none. - External send, publication, provider writes, database authority, customer effects, and production state remain explicitly held. - Keyboard navigation, visible labels, predictable focus order, text alternatives for non-text evidence, and non-color-only lifecycle states are specified for implementation. - A deterministic test can open each proposed app route, inspect its prototype or indexed state, and verify that no route implies a connected production backend. ## Negative and held-state tests - Grant requirements may be misread or change after evidence collection; preserve source locators and review dates. - Conflicting or inaccessible sources can create unsupported claims; mark gaps and disputes instead of filling them with assumptions. - Deadline timezone, recurrence, or calendar interpretation may be wrong; require human confirmation before external scheduling. - Sensitive applicant, financial, or personal information may be placed in the wrong visibility partition; record sensitivity and avoid unsupported sharing. - Draft confidence may be mistaken for qualification, approval, publication, or funding outcome. - Instrument names can be confused with connected tools; exact verified slugs and lifecycle labels are required. - Agent output may be treated as final legal, financial, compliance, or grant advice; require human review and preserve authority boundaries. - Website claims may overstate results, eligibility, partnerships, or availability; hold claims lacking direct evidence. - File references do not prove upload, protected storage, or provider custody; keep those effects held. - Duplicate documentation pages can dilute search value and create doorway content; each URL must answer a distinct user question. ## Qualification claim boundary ### Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence - This is a proposed, source-bound field guide for grant dossier preparation and review. - The guide is associated with the source record for Grant dossiers and lists Tilly as the owner agent in that record. - The guide can describe evidence traceability, reconciliation, review, drafting, deadlines, and approval boundaries as intended procedure. - The guide may link to documented local prototype or index surfaces with their observed lifecycle labels. ### Still held - That Guth has deployed a grant dossier workflow or connected production backend. - That any provider, credential, database, customer, publication, calendar write, message send, or external submission is connected or completed. - That Tilly is qualified to provide legal, financial, compliance, grant-award, or funding advice. - That a grant application is eligible, complete, competitive, approved, submitted, funded, or likely to succeed. - That any instrument is qualified for this guide; no exact verified instrument is designated. - That evidence is authoritative, current, complete, or independently validated unless a specific review record supports the statement. - That a website claim has been published, indexed for customers, or approved for public use. ## 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` - `source record: field-guide:grant-dossiers` - `Observed native contract: project_and_field_guide_collections` - `Observed native contract: deadlines` - `Observed native contract: records` - `Observed native contract: pointguard`