... and Why Good Writing Isn't Enough

Every week, I speak with founders who feel they did everything right—clear idea, polished language, AI-assisted structure—and still didn’t get funded.

They’re frustrated. Confused. Wondering if it’s all just a lottery.

Here’s the truth most people won’t tell you: Grant assessors aren’t looking for perfection. They’re looking for alignment.

Not just whether your project sounds good — but whether it makes sense in the context of what the funder is trying to achieve. If your project isn’t aligned with their priorities, objectives, or outcome areas, even the most compelling narrative won’t land.

After assessing over $50 million in government applications, these are the patterns I see again and again.

3 Reasons Founders Get Ruled Out Early

1. No Clear Line of Sight to Impact
   You talk about the change you want to make — but there’s no roadmap to get there. You mention impact, but offer no metrics. You highlight outcomes, but there’s no way to track them. If an assessor can’t trace the logic from your activities to your stated outcomes, you lose credibility fast.

2. The Project Doesn’t Match the Funder’s Objectives
   This is the most common issue. Your project might be worthwhile. It might even be urgent. But if it’s not solving the specific challenge the funder has prioritised, they can’t support it — no matter how impressive your story or credentials.

3. You Wrote What You Think They Want to Hear
   This happens a lot when founders overuse templates or AI. The result is a polished but disconnected proposal — one that plays it safe, ticks boxes, and in the process, forgets to stand for something.

What Happens When AI Is Misused

AI is everywhere in grant writing now. And yes — it can help. It can clarify your ideas, speed up your first drafts, and give structure to sections you’ve been avoiding.

But here’s what I’ve seen, time and time again, on the assessment side:

• Polished prose with no punch. AI often produces language that sounds smart but lacks specificity. Applications full of terms like “empower,” “transform,” and “scale” — with no substance beneath.

• Misaligned answers. AI isn’t context-aware. It might suggest a budget item or delivery method that contradicts your business model or technology maturity. I’ve seen applications where the timeline made promises the team couldn’t meet, simply because the AI filled in blanks without real-world grounding.

• False confidence. Some founders rely on AI to write entire sections they haven’t validated. That’s risky. You’re the expert in your business, not the language model.

Used well, AI sharpens your voice. Used poorly, it blurs your credibility.

What I’ve Learned After Assessing $50M+ in Applications

From reviewing dozens of funding rounds, here are a few things most founders don’t know — but really should:

• “Innovation” isn’t a feeling — it’s a threshold. You don’t get points for calling your solution innovative. You get them for demonstrating what’s new, how it solves a validated problem, and how it stacks up against existing alternatives.

• Being “pre-revenue” is fine — being vague isn’t. I’ve seen founders forecast $500K+ in revenue with zero evidence of demand. If you can’t back it up, it’s better to be honest and strategic than optimistic and unproven.

• Good ideas fail because of bad structure. Some of the best concepts I read never made it past Stage 1 — because they weren’t ready. No pilot, no plan, no traction, no team.

• Female founders are underrepresented — and overprepared. Women-led businesses made up a small proportion of applications. But when they applied, they were more likely to have clear milestones, financials, and risk management in place. It’s not always rewarded — but it is noticed.

How to Show Funders You “Get It”

The applications that stand out aren’t always flashy. They’re grounded. Specific. Aligned.

You don’t need to over-explain or oversell — but you do need to show that you understand what the funder cares about and how your project helps them deliver on their mission.

Here’s how:

1. Read the guidelines like a strategist, not a student.
The guidelines are more than rules — they’re a map. They tell you what matters, how you'll be scored, and what evidence is expected. Read between the lines. Align your answers to the outcomes they care about most.

2. Map your project to their priorities.
Don’t just tell them what you’re doing — show how it delivers what they need. If their mandate is economic participation, demonstrate how your approach leads to jobs. If it’s social inclusion, explain your reach and relevance.

3. Back it up with evidence.
You don’t need to have a perfect pilot, but you do need to show that your thinking is grounded in experience or data. I’ve scored applications up simply because they showed market testing, stakeholder feedback, or traction indicators.

4. Keep your voice.
The best applications sound like they were written by someone who actually does the work. Because they were. Whether you're using AI or a consultant, your application should reflect your thinking, your leadership, and your lived experience.

You don’t need to overhaul your process.
You need to shift your lens.

See your application the way a funder would.
See your answers not just as content, but as alignment signals.
And most importantly, see yourself as someone worthy of funding — because your work already proves that you are.

If you're ready to strengthen your next application, here are your next steps:

👉 Take the Pathways to Funding Quiz
👉 Book a Readiness Review

You’ve done the work. Now let’s make sure the right people see it.