Playbook #26
Assess Your Eligibility for a Grant
Get an argued eligibility diagnosis in 5 minutes, with clear criteria and supporting evidence.
The Challenge
You receive a fifteen-page grant guide. The answer to the key question—are you eligible or not—is in there, but it's scattered, nuanced, sometimes ambiguous. You then spend two to three hours interpreting each condition, doubting the exact meaning of thresholds ("10 employees or more: included or excluded?"), and end up paying for a pre-evaluation you could have framed yourself in a few minutes.
What this playbook brings you
This capsule takes you from hesitant reading to a structured and defensible diagnosis in five minutes. You get a clear eligibility verdict (eligible, ineligible, or to confirm), an indicative alignment percentage with the program, identification of at-risk criteria, and a prioritized checklist of evidence to gather. The goal isn't to replace a complete analysis, but to let you quickly decide if the effort is worth it—and which points to focus your human validation on.
"A well-targeted application is worth more than ten random requests." — Project management proverb
When to use this playbook
- You receive a new program and want to know quickly if it's worth your time
- You're preparing a discussion with your accountant or advisor and want to arrive with a structured diagnosis
- Your cash flow is limited and you need to prioritize the most likely grants
- You're comparing several similar programs and need to choose
- A junior team member is doing initial sorting before involving you
What you'll need
- Basic information about your company (legal status, year of creation, headcount, location, sector)
- The official text of the program's eligibility criteria (PDF or web page)
- A very brief description of the project (type, approximate budget, main objective)
- Security note: Never share any confidential or non-public information in an AI tool, unless it is explicitly approved by your organization (e.g., Enterprise instance or Copilot with data protection).
This prompt works with all AI tools
Copy-paste this prompt into your tool
Act as a senior grant advisor for SMEs in Quebec/Canada.
Your role is to assess a company's eligibility for a grant program, in a factual, prudent, and verifiable manner.
Analyze the information below and the official program text.
Do not assume anything. Do not invent any criteria. Support each conclusion with the provided text.
Company Data
– Legal status: [to complete]
– Year of creation: [to complete]
– Number of employees: [to complete]
– Revenue or relevant financial size: [to complete]
– Location: [to complete]
– Sector of activity: [to complete]
– Project description: [type, objective, approximate budget]
Program Text
[Paste the official eligibility criteria text or analyzed link here]
Requested Analysis – strict format
1. Overall Verdict
Classify the company in a single category:
– Eligible
– Not eligible
– To clarify
Add, if relevant, an approximate confidence level (e.g., high, medium, low).
2. Blocking Criteria (priority verification)
For each identified blocking criterion:
– Criterion name
– Verdict: met / not met / ambiguous
– Exact quote from the program text
– Interpretation applied to the company
3. Weighted or Qualitative Criteria
List criteria that influence application quality without being disqualifying:
– Estimated alignment (strong / medium / weak)
– Justification based on the text
– Point of attention or possible compensatory action
4. Evidence Checklist to Provide
Classify expected documents by risk order:
– Critical: absence = likely rejection
– Important: absence = weakened application
– Administrative: required but not strategic
5. Recommended Next Steps
– If eligible: immediate action priority
– If not eligible: main blocking criterion and whether correction is possible or not
– If to clarify: specific question to address to the managing organization
Absolute Rules
– Each cited criterion must be linked to an exact sentence from the program
– If a threshold or definition is unclear, ask one targeted question for clarification
– Do not explain the method, focus only on the analysis
– Your tone is neutral, rigorous, and decision-oriented, like an external auditor
Reminder: AI can make mistakes. Always review the content before sharing it.
Your feedback on this playbook
As a beta tester, your feedback is invaluable in helping us improve the experience.
Less than 30 seconds