Every recommendation lists the factors behind it, the notes explaining each one, and the gaps worth closing before you invest a weekend writing.
The scoring model
Weights are tuned so hard constraints dominate: eligibility first, then how well the program matches what you actually do.
| Factor | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility | 18% | Entity type gate. Ineligible programs are capped, never recommended. |
| Industry fit | 22% | How close your sector is to the funder’s funded sectors. |
| Keyword overlap | 16% | Term-level match against the program’s own vocabulary. |
| Stage | 12% | Idea, prototype, early revenue, or growth — plus adjacent-stage credit. |
| Geography | 10% | National, state-restricted, or regional programs. |
| Award fit | 8% | Your funding goal versus the program’s published range. |
| Set-asides | 6% | Ownership-based priority funding and smaller applicant pools. |
| R&D focus | 4% | Whether the program funds technical work or execution. |
| Timing | 4% | Rolling windows versus hard cut-offs you can still make. |
Drafting
The generator consumes the program’s eligibility rules, required attachments, and published review criteria — then maps sections to each criterion.
Company name, sector, stage, location, funding goal, keywords, and mission. Anything unknown is written as [TO CONFIRM] rather than invented.
Bring an OpenRouter, OpenAI, or self-hosted key for long-form generation. Without one, the built-in narrative engine produces a structured, funder-specific draft.
Every draft is a plain text workspace: edit inline, copy, download, or print to PDF for your board pack.
Tracking
Drafting → in review → submitted → awarded, with withdrawn and not-awarded states.
Auto-generated from the program’s own requirements, plus the standard compliance items.
Drafts, status moves, checklist completions, and notes are stamped with time.
Requested, submitted, and awarded totals calculated from your live pipeline.
Build the profile in two minutes and watch the scores re-rank as you type.