Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/field-guides/grant-dossiers/steps/ field guide / candidate # Grant dossiers โ€” steps The distinct steps 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 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. ## Ordered procedure - Create a proposed grant dossier project owned by Tilly and link the supplied source record, related jobs, and source reference agents/index.html#tilly. - Capture each available opportunity, requirement, or instruction as a source-labelled record; preserve canonical ID, origin, source locator, source SHA-256 when available, provenance, revision, lifecycle, tags, links, and attachments. - Separate observed source text from interpretation by marking assumptions, unknowns, and unresolved questions explicitly; do not convert a named grant or job into a claim of eligibility, availability, or qualification. - Build a requirement matrix in Notebook Notes or Projects, with one row per requirement and a direct source locator or an explicit evidence gap. - Create evidence records and local file references in Files; inspect type and size, link each file to the relevant requirement, and keep upload or protected storage held where the route indicates it is held. - Draft each response section in Paper or Notes, linking every material assertion to evidence and recording limits, assumptions, and revision history. - Create a deadline workback in To-dos using dueAt, priority, tags, completion state, and dependencies; use Agenda only to inspect or draft schedule changes, with external writes held. - Run an independent review focused on source fidelity, completeness, unsupported claims, conflicts, accessibility of the dossier structure, and whether every deadline has an owner. - Reconcile reviewer findings against source and evidence records; preserve disagreements rather than silently choosing a side, and create a held question when the source does not resolve the conflict. - Prepare a human-review package in Approvals containing the dossier summary, evidence map, unresolved items, deadline workback, draft status, and explicit authority boundaries. - Record the local decision as Needs review, Approved, or Held with a receipt; treat Approved as a local proposal decision only, not as submission or qualification. - Inspect Agent Logs and Search to confirm provenance, current work, visibility boundaries, revisions, and linked receipts before marking the guide complete. ## Deadline and chronology rules - Use only dates stated in the supplied source records or explicitly entered by a human; otherwise mark the date unknown. - Record timezone, cutoff time, and submission method only when supplied; never infer them. - Create internal workback targets before the source-stated deadline, but label them internal targets rather than external requirements. - Assign every deadline task an owner, dueAt, priority, and dependency where known. - If a deadline is missing, ambiguous, passed, or conflicting, branch to Held and create a review question. - Do not write to an external calendar, provider, grant portal, customer system, or production database; Agenda changes remain drafts. - Do not mark a dossier submitted, funded, eligible, qualified, published, or connected. ## Failure branches during execution - 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`