AI for community foundations
Prepare an award-reporting follow-up map for community foundations: three administrative tasks, a synthetic worked example, and a complete reviewed brief.
Quick answer
For community foundations, start with an award-reporting follow-up map for the grants officer. Use award references to track reporting evidence rather than collapse distinct grants under one grantee name. Righthand can help prepare the administrative draft from inputs you authorize; staff review its evidence and decide the next action.
Three desk tasks
1. Prepare reporting windows
List upcoming accepted deadlines with the matching award.
2. Check supplied documents
Preserve draft, reviewed, and absent evidence states.
3. Draft reviewer questions
Route period or amount discrepancies without changing grant records.
Who owns each handoff?
| Input | Proposed assistant deliverable | Responsible person |
|---|---|---|
| approved award register and progress-document index | award-reporting follow-up map with record references | grants officer |
| Missing or contradictory fields | Exception and source-linked question | Named source owner |
| Approved next step | Reviewable coordination draft | Staff authorize external action |
Worked example: three records, three outcomes
The following inputs and outputs are synthetic, not customer results. Read them as a test packet for this desk.
| Illustrative source row | Useful worked output |
|---|---|
| Award F-51: reporting deadline exists but the current progress document is a draft. | Show draft awaiting review rather than report the grantee requirement satisfied. |
| Award F-52: finance figure has a different period from the grant narrative. | Return the period discrepancy for staff reconciliation without alter the amount. |
| Award F-53: two awards share a grantee name but have distinct reporting references. | Keep separate reporting entries tied to award IDs rather than merge by organization name. |
Correction check: Match award identity, required window, and approval state before preparing a reminder. Evidence organization is not a decision to fund, renew, or accept compliance with grant conditions.
Complete first-run brief
Prepare an award-reporting follow-up map from approved award register and progress-document index. Cover October 12–16, 2026; use America/Los_Angeles for date cutoffs. Include these source fields: award ID, grantee ID, report window, due date, document version, reviewer. Trigger: Monday at 9 AM. Output: a source-linked Markdown draft in my private review thread, grouped by next action and owner. Reviewer: the grants officer. Flag missing fields or conflicting versions. Do not award funds, approve reports, interpret grant obligations, or change financial commitments. Do not send messages, change source records, or spend money. Result check: Reconcile award ID, reporting period, and approved document state with the grants officer.
Replace the illustrative dates and source locations before running this task. Use an approved extract when a native connection and its exact actions have not been verified; the extract remains a snapshot, not live synchronization.
First-week check and failure boundaries
Use one grants officer’s upcoming reporting window and inspect the packet at the existing grant-review meeting. Different awards can share a grantee. A file received may not satisfy the award’s accepted reporting process. Do not award funds, approve reports, interpret grant obligations, or change financial commitments. When an input changes, rerun the affected comparison and retain its source reference; do not overwrite the authoritative operational record with a draft.
The Righthand documentation explains setup. Consult source-record guidance for the underlying system, and use Features to check the proposed task fit. Review Pricing against the actual pilot workload before expanding.