SAMPLE REPORT — Illustrative company and figures. No live research was performed, actual agent executions: 0, MAX Not run, Guardians not run (built · integration pending). Human decisions remain required.
Sample Report 12 · Family Office
Family Office — Compare Three Philanthropic Initiatives
The Hartwell Family Office (sample) · Sample results only
Client assignment
The family wants a governance-focused comparison of three initiatives: a youth literacy program, a workforce training program and a watershed restoration project.
How the client assigns it to TED: The family office director gives TED sample proposals and budgets and asks for a structured comparison for the next family meeting. TED confirms this is not legal or tax advice.
Executive summary
Literacy scores highest (4.20) with the lowest cost per outcome ($400 per student). Workforce training (3.90) has the strongest measurable impact; watershed (3.70) has the best governance. All three need due diligence before family approval.
3
Initiatives compared
Illustrative proposals
4.20
Top score
Youth literacy
$1.55M
Combined requests
$500K + $600K + $450K
Key findings
1. Literacy is efficient and aligned
$500K over three years for 1,250 students.
2. Workforce training measures best
Clear job placement outcomes for 300 graduates at $2,000 each.
3. Watershed governance is strongest
Independent audits and board oversight, but outcomes are harder to measure per dollar.
Governance scoring (illustrative, 1 to 5)
Weights: mission 30%, measurable impact 25%, capacity 20%, governance/reporting 15%, cost per outcome 10%.
FactorMission alignment (30%)
- Literacy
- 5
- Workforce
- 4
- Watershed
- 4
FactorMeasurable impact (25%)
- Literacy
- 4
- Workforce
- 5
- Watershed
- 3
FactorOrganizational capacity (20%)
- Literacy
- 4
- Workforce
- 3
- Watershed
- 4
FactorGovernance & reporting (15%)
- Literacy
- 4
- Workforce
- 3
- Watershed
- 5
FactorCost per outcome (10%)
- Literacy
- 3
- Workforce
- 4
- Watershed
- 2
FactorWeighted total
- Literacy
- 4.20
- Workforce
- 3.90
- Watershed
- 3.70
Cost per outcome (illustrative)
Request ÷ planned outcomes.
InitiativeLiteracy
- Request
- $500K
- Outcomes
- 1,250 students
- Cost per outcome
- $400
InitiativeWorkforce
- Request
- $600K
- Outcomes
- 300 graduates
- Cost per outcome
- $2,000
InitiativeWatershed
- Request
- $450K
- Outcomes
- 15 acres
- Cost per outcome
- $30,000/acre
Options & decision table
Funding options
Illustrative; family decides.
OptionFund literacy fully
- Benefit
- Highest score
- Consideration
- Single focus
OptionSplit literacy and workforce
- Benefit
- Balance of reach and outcomes
- Consideration
- $1.1M total
OptionStaged grants with milestones
- Benefit
- Controls risk
- Consideration
- More reporting work
Prioritized action plan
- 1Complete due diligence: financials, governance, referencesFamily office director · 45 days
- 2Draft grant agreements with milestones and reporting, reviewed by counselCounsel · 60 days
- 3Present to family council for voteFamily council · Next meeting
Success metrics
- Reporting received on schedule
- Outcome targets met at each milestone
- Grant funds used as restricted
SOCRATEE's Perspective
Sample text, not generated
Assumptions to test
- Outcome counts are achievable
- Grantee capacity can scale
What deserves questioning
- Are outcomes comparable across very different causes?
- What does the family value beyond the score?
Sources & evidence
Illustrative assumptions (not evidence)
- Initiatives, budgets and outcomes are sample data
Verified data needed before deciding
- Audited financial statements
- Public filings
- Program evaluations
- Counsel and tax adviser review
Verified evidence attached: none. No citations are provided because no research was performed.
Safeguards
- Not legal or tax advice
- Family approval required
- Grant controls reviewed by professionals
Report status · Research & Review Record
- Actual agent executions: 0
- MAX independent grade: Not run
- 18 Guardians: Built · Integration Pending; no review occurred
- Live research: None performed
- Final decision: Always a human decision
Specialist roles (role definitions · not executed)
- TED — Coordinator: would scope the assignment, route work and assemble the report.
- RES — Would gather grantee public filings, cited.
- KNOLLY — Would reconcile proposals and budgets.
- SOCRATEE — Would question comparability of outcomes.
- LIBBY — Would flag grant control and reporting items for counsel.
- MAX — Potential independent grader. Not run; no grade exists.
- 18 Guardians — Potential oversight layer. Built · Integration Pending; no review occurred.
How AI Team One Works — Step by Step (prewritten)
Stage 1
The assignment
The family office director asks to compare three initiatives.
Stage 2
TED coordinates
TED routes governance scoring, cost per outcome and diligence items.
Stage 3
Specialist responsibilities
RES plans grantee filings review, KNOLLY reconciles budgets, LIBBY flags items for counsel.
Stage 4
Oversight design
Oversight here would center on comparability: SOCRATEE would test whether outcomes can be compared honestly across three very different causes, since a single ranking may hide that, LIBBY would route legal and tax questions to counsel and require audited statements before any figure counts, MAX could grade the cost-per-outcome math, and the Guardians could review the grant controls. In this sample none of that ran: MAX Not run, Guardians not run (built · integration pending).
Stage 5
The executive report
The result would look like "Family Office — Compare Three Philanthropic Initiatives": findings, options, a prioritized action plan and the data still needed. Prewritten sample content; actual agent executions: 0.