Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/jobs/tilly-grant-research-and-drafts/qualification/ job / candidate # Grant research and drafts โ€” qualification The distinct qualification record for Grant research and drafts. This page is proposal-only. Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate** ## Record status **Record ID**: job:tilly:grant-research-and-drafts **Parent lifecycle**: candidate **Page lane**: qualification **Lane lifecycle**: proposed **Owner**: Tilly **Owner role**: Pointguard and independent reviewer **Owner status**: WORKING **Qualification result**: NOT RUN ยท held for evidence and human review **Working browser surface:** [Agent jobs โ€” builder overview]() โ€” Inspect the package and stage a local project. 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 qualification 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. - Deterministic qualification succeeds only when the opportunity has a named sponsor, identifiable opportunity, source locator, retrieval time, and source integrity field; otherwise state is held. - Every material eligibility, amount, deadline, and restriction claim has at least one source receipt or is visibly marked unsupported. - A second source or reviewer can reproduce each qualified claim from its locator and preserved evidence without relying on hidden context. - A contradiction between sources is surfaced as contradicted and cannot be collapsed into a single confident value. - An opportunity with an expired, missing, ambiguous, or timezone-unknown deadline cannot receive a qualified-open state. - Internal workback dates are visibly labeled calculated and never appear as sponsor-stated deadlines. - A draft with unsupported applicant facts, invented outcomes, invented partnerships, or missing citations remains draft-held and cannot be treated as a public claim. - Tilly cannot transition her own evidence from Needs review to Approved. - Funding commitments, credential access, final publication, and external submission remain held regardless of draft completeness. - Changing another agent's source record is rejected or routed to that record's owner; a linked correction record may be proposed instead. - A source with missing locator, unreadable content, altered checksum, or unclear provenance produces a source-failure state rather than a completed claim. - Duplicate opportunity records are detected by sponsor, identifier, and source locator; suspected duplicates are linked and reviewed rather than merged silently. - Search and indexing expose only records permitted by visibility state; private or held material is not presented as public or customer-indexed. - Keyboard navigation reaches every form control, status, error, and review action; labels are programmatically associated with fields. - Validation errors identify the field, explain the failure in plain language, preserve entered values, and do not rely on color alone. - Drafts, notes, source references, and receipts preserve canonical IDs, origin, revisions, lifecycle, and provenance across updates. ## Negative and held-state tests - Stale grant pages or changed sponsor requirements - Conflicting deadlines, timezones, or deadline semantics - Eligibility inferred from a broad program description rather than stated requirements - Doorway or keyword-spam documentation that adds no useful evidence - Citation laundering through copied summaries without primary source locators - Invented applicant qualifications, partners, budgets, outcomes, or prior funding - Tilly approving her own evidence despite the never-rule - Contradictions hidden during draft polishing - Draft language mistaken for a funding commitment, submission, credential action, or public claim - Sensitive organizational, financial, or personal information copied into broadly visible notes - Accidental external send, publication, provider write, or database/customer indexing - Loss of provenance, checksum, revision history, or record ownership - Inaccessible error handling or status communication ## Qualification claim boundary ### Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence - A proposal-only draft exists and identifies its current lifecycle. - A source-labelled note or claim receipt records what a cited source says, with locator and verification metadata. - A qualification remains Needs review, Held, supported, unsupported, contradicted, or stale-risk when that is the recorded state. - An internal workback plan is calculated from a recorded deadline and clearly labeled as internal planning. - A draft contains placeholders or limitations that are explicitly disclosed. ### Still held - The grant is open, available, or currently accepting applications without current verified evidence. - The applicant or organization is eligible. - A funding amount, award probability, deadline, sponsor policy, or program requirement is authoritative when evidence is missing or conflicting. - Any funding commitment, submission, credential access, provider connection, database write, customer indexing, publication, or deployment occurred. - A draft is approved, endorsed, submitted, funded, or a public claim. - Tilly's evidence is independently approved when she performed the evidence work. - A named native surface is a connected web feature or production system. ## Sources and evidence These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment. - `agents/index.html#tilly` - `source_record:job:tilly:grant-research-and-drafts` - `OBSERVED_NATIVE_CONTRACT.project_and_field_guide_collections` - `OBSERVED_NATIVE_CONTRACT.deadlines` - `OBSERVED_NATIVE_CONTRACT.records` - `OBSERVED_NATIVE_CONTRACT.pointguard` - `APP_ROUTES:/app/pointguard/` - `APP_ROUTES:/app/notebook/notes/` - `APP_ROUTES:/app/notebook/files/` - `APP_ROUTES:/app/notebook/approvals/` - `APP_ROUTES:/app/notebook/field-guides/` - `APP_ROUTES:/app/notebook/agent-logs/` - `ALLOWED_INSTRUMENTS: no instrument selected; no calculation is required by the supplied job record`