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 10 · Nonprofit
Nonprofit — Find and Prioritize Foundation Grants
Bright Futures Youth Alliance (sample) · Sample results only
Client assignment
The nonprofit needs $250,000 for youth programs and wants a method to find, score and pursue foundation grants.
How the client assigns it to TED: The executive director asks TED to build a prospect scoring method and outreach plan. TED confirms no foundation or grant will be named until verified from the funder's own published materials.
Executive summary
A five-factor fit score ranks three placeholder prospects (A 4.20, B 3.85, C 3.35). The weighted pipeline totals $102,500 against a $250,000 goal, so 6 to 8 more qualified prospects are needed.
$250K
Funding goal
Youth programs
$102.5K
Weighted pipeline
Requests × probability
$147.5K
Remaining gap
Goal − weighted pipeline
Key findings
1. Mission fit drives ranking
Prospect A scores highest on mission and geography.
2. Pipeline is too thin
Three prospects cover 41% of the goal on a weighted basis.
3. Restrictions matter
Some funders restrict to program costs; general operating needs require separate prospects.
Grant fit scoring (placeholder prospects, 1 to 5)
Weights: mission 35%, geography 20%, grant size 15%, eligibility 20%, relationship 10%. Prospects are placeholders, not real foundations.
FactorMission fit (35%)
- Prospect A
- 5
- Prospect B
- 4
- Prospect C
- 3
FactorGeography (20%)
- Prospect A
- 5
- Prospect B
- 3
- Prospect C
- 5
FactorGrant size fit (15%)
- Prospect A
- 3
- Prospect B
- 5
- Prospect C
- 2
FactorEligibility (20%)
- Prospect A
- 4
- Prospect B
- 5
- Prospect C
- 3
FactorRelationship (10%)
- Prospect A
- 2
- Prospect B
- 1
- Prospect C
- 4
FactorWeighted total
- Prospect A
- 4.20
- Prospect B
- 3.85
- Prospect C
- 3.35
Weighted pipeline (illustrative)
Weighted value = request × estimated probability.
ProspectA
- Request
- $100,000
- Probability
- 40%
- Weighted
- $40,000
ProspectB
- Request
- $150,000
- Probability
- 25%
- Weighted
- $37,500
ProspectC
- Request
- $50,000
- Probability
- 50%
- Weighted
- $25,000
ProspectTotal
- Request
- $300,000
- Probability
- —
- Weighted
- $102,500
Options & decision table
Pursuit options
Illustrative.
OptionPursue A and C now
- Effort
- Moderate
- Consideration
- Fastest relationships
OptionFull proposal to B
- Effort
- High
- Consideration
- Largest request
OptionExpand prospect research
- Effort
- Moderate
- Consideration
- Closes the gap
Prioritized action plan
- 1Verify eligibility, deadlines and restrictions from each funder's published guidelinesDevelopment director · 2 weeks
- 2Research and score 6 to 8 additional prospectsDevelopment team · 30 days
- 3Schedule introductory calls with A and C; track in donor pipelineExecutive director · 45 days
Success metrics
- Weighted pipeline at or above $250K
- Every deadline verified and calendared
- Proposals submitted on time
SOCRATEE's Perspective
Sample text, not generated
Assumptions to test
- Probabilities reflect real relationship strength
- Programs meet funder outcome requirements
What deserves questioning
- Is the nonprofit too dependent on a few funders?
- Can it report outcomes funders will require?
Sources & evidence
Illustrative assumptions (not evidence)
- Prospects A, B, C, amounts and probabilities are placeholders
Verified data needed before deciding
- Funder guidelines and deadlines from official sources
- Public filings where available
- Program outcome data
Verified evidence attached: none. No citations are provided because no research was performed.
Safeguards
- No foundation or grant named without verification
- Staff send all outreach; the AI team only drafts
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 identify real prospects from official funder sources, cited.
- KNOLLY — Would maintain the verified prospect file.
- Grants Specialist (role definition) — Would apply the fit score and draft outreach.
- SOCRATEE — Would question probability estimates.
- LIBBY — Would check eligibility and use restrictions.
- 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 executive director asks how to find and prioritize grants.
Stage 2
TED coordinates
TED routes fit scoring, pipeline math and a verification checklist.
Stage 3
Specialist responsibilities
A Grants Specialist role scores fit, RES plans verified prospect research, LIBBY checks restrictions.
Stage 4
Oversight design
Oversight here would center on concentration and verification: SOCRATEE would test whether the pipeline leaves the nonprofit dependent on one or two funders, LIBBY would keep any foundation or grant out of the shortlist until its own guidelines and deadline are confirmed from official sources, MAX could grade the fit scores, and the Guardians could review the outreach sequence. 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 "Nonprofit — Find and Prioritize Foundation Grants": findings, options, a prioritized action plan and the data still needed. Prewritten sample content; actual agent executions: 0.