Coordinate restricted funding, program evidence, and reporting obligations while staff retain funding and beneficiary decisions.
Explore in the architecture studioIllustrative reference architecture. Validate requirements for your organization.
Illustrative architecture: A nonprofit runs community programs funded by several restricted grants. Program staff need to connect delivery records, approved budgets, and reporting requirements without exposing beneficiary information unnecessarily. Agents prepare grant evidence and exception packets; accountable staff approve spending, eligibility, and external reports.
The same activity can serve multiple programs but must not be counted twice in a grant report. Narrative records may contain sensitive personal circumstances, and donor restrictions can differ by award amendment. A fluent summary can hide missing evidence or unsupported impact claims.
Grant-rule, expenditure, program-evidence, and reporting specialists work within funding and privacy boundaries. Deterministic allocation services reconcile amounts, while staff decide acceptable evidence and professional judgments about program delivery.
The intended result is a reviewable operational decision with source evidence and explicit ownership. Measure staff preparation and reporting accuracy while preserving dignity and privacy. Social outcomes require separate evaluation design and evidence; the agent workflow should not convert activity counts into invented claims of impact.
Retrieve award terms, reporting dates, and approved amendments.
Cannot interpret disputed restrictions as legal advice or authorize spending.
Match transactions to approved budget lines and identify possible double allocation.
Cannot post journals, move funds, or approve expenses.
Link delivered activities to verified attendance or service records with minimum personal data.
Cannot infer beneficiary eligibility or fabricate impact outcomes.
Draft source-backed reporting sections and unresolved questions for program leaders.
Cannot submit reports, contact donors, or publish beneficiary stories without approval.
Own award versions, restrictions, budgets, transactions, and approved allocations.
Retains activity evidence, consent context, and responsible service staff.
Tracks deadlines, reviewed report revisions, authorized submissions, and donor acknowledgements.
flowchart LR
N0["Grant delivery and beneficiary evidence desk"]
N1["Grant requirement agent"]
N2["Expenditure reconciler"]
N3["Program evidence agent"]
N4["Report preparation agent"]
N5["Evidence ledger"]
N6["Human decision"]
N7["Authorized adapter"]
N0 --> N1
N0 --> N2
N0 --> N3
N1 --> N4
N2 --> N4
N3 --> N4
N4 --> N5
N5 --> N6
N6 --> N7sequenceDiagram
participant O as "Case orchestrator"
participant S as "Grant and finance systems"
participant H as "Accountable reviewer"
O->>S: Read grant activity allocations
S-->>O: Activity appears in incompatible award totals
O->>H: Hold affected report sections
H-->>O: Approve corrected allocation
O->>S: Save reviewed reporting manifestBind the packet to grant, reporting interval, award amendment version, and accountable program owner.
Map approved reporting obligations and budget restrictions without assuming terms carry across different awards.
Calculate eligible candidate allocations using deterministic rules and flag overlaps for finance review.
Link activities to verified records, aggregate beneficiary information where possible, and retain missing evidence explicitly.
Present program and finance leaders with supported metrics, proposed narrative, unresolved restrictions, and any consent gaps.
Publish only the reviewed report through the authorized workflow and preserve submission receipts and follow-up obligations.
Detect: Cross-award allocation checks find duplicated activity identifiers beyond approved sharing rules.
Recover: Hold both affected report sections and ask program and finance owners to reconcile the allocation.
Detect: Consent metadata does not cover the intended audience or report channel.
Recover: Remove identifiable content and request an approved aggregate alternative or valid permission through staff procedures.
Measurement definitions, not promised improvements.
Reported delivery metrics linked to verified activity records divided by reported metrics.
Candidate expenditure lines requiring finance correction divided by lines reviewed.
Time from period close to a leader-reviewable grant packet with unresolved items identified.
Identifiable stories or assets with permission matching the intended use divided by proposed identifiable items.
| Decision | Benefit | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Cross-grant reconciliation | Exposes duplicate allocation and reporting risks. | Requires shared identifiers across finance and program records. |
| Aggregated beneficiary evidence | Reduces unnecessary personal-data exposure. | Some grant audits require separately authorized access to originals. |
| Source-backed narratives | Makes claims easier to verify. | Incomplete field records limit what a report can responsibly assert. |
Program and finance staff verify amendments, duplicate allocations, and unsupported impact claims.
One grant cycle evaluates evidence packets and beneficiary-data minimization without donor submission.
Controlled submission drafts launch after consent-scope, award-amendment, and duplicate-activity tests pass.