Grant Writers & Consultants
Before you tell a client to pursue a grant, can you prove it was viable?
Right now, most consultants cannot. That is not an efficiency problem. It is exposure.
The real problem
This is not a research problem. It is a liability problem.
You recommended it. They acted on it.
If it wasn't viable, there is no process you can point to that proves you did your job. There is no document. No source trail. No verification layer behind the recommendation that left your hands.
Most consultants think they are being thorough. In reality, they are making a 25-hour client bet on incomplete information, funded by their own unpaid research hours.
Two failure modes drive most of this. A Vibe Match -- where the mission language fits but the budget floor, geography, or operating history doesn't. And a Ghost Deadline -- a cycle listed as open that hasn't actually accepted applications in two or three years. Both look viable until someone checks the primary source. Neither gets caught by a recommendation built on intuition alone.
What it looks like
They didn't fire you. They decided quietly.
The rejection comes back. Your client doesn't complain. They thank you.
A few weeks later, you follow up. They're "reassessing."
You hear they hired someone else.
They decided quietly that you sent them somewhere you shouldn't have. That the 25 hours their program coordinator spent was based on your word, and you didn't have a process to stand behind. The referral they would have given goes with them.
Before your next recommendation goes out, that same risk is still there.
"We were about to recommend it. The verification showed the funder hadn't funded a new organization in five years. That saved a client relationship."
Grant consultantWhat Sharke does
This is the step before a recommendation leaves your hands.
Run the grant through a verification layer that checks every factor that determines whether a recommendation is defensible. Everything checked against primary sources, not summaries.
- → Eligibility requirements
- → Funder award history
- → Organization fit for your client
- → Timing and cycle status
- → Relationship requirements
What you get
A Due Diligence Report you can show your client.
Not an opinion. A document.
Due Diligence Report: What It Contains
- ✓ Eligibility confirmed against primary source
- ✓ Funder award history checked
- ✓ Client organization fit assessed
- ✓ Sources cited
- ✓ Decision documented with reasoning
Example output
Before
"I believe this is a good fit."
After
"Here is the verification behind this recommendation."
The standard
This is what separates a recommendation from a defensible recommendation.
Your clients are already using AI to find grants themselves. They expect faster answers. They expect better decisions. What they do not accept is an unverifiable recommendation, especially after they have committed time to pursuing it.
Strong consultants do not send a recommendation without a verification trail behind it. That is the standard. This is what closes the gap between having an opinion and having a process.
What recommendation are you about to send?
Before you send that recommendation.
Think about the recommendation sitting in your drafts right now. The one going to your client this week. Run this before you send it.
Once you see this, you can't go back to recommending grants without verifying first.
Strong consultants don't send a recommendation without a verification trail behind it.
$49. Verification trail in 24 hours.
If that recommendation is wrong, what do you show your client?
This is the answer to that question, before they have to ask it.