Clear answers about what AutoGrant does, what people control, and how to evaluate it.

AutoGrant is the AI-native grant operating system. It helps grant-dependent organizations define fundable priorities, organize opportunities, make defensible pursuit decisions, extract requirements, develop and review applications, prepare submissions, steward awards, report, and renew.

Opportunity intelligence is part of the product, but AutoGrant is not only a database. It evaluates whether an opportunity is worth pursuing and carries approved opportunities into the full workflow.

It can support structured drafting from approved organizational evidence and funder requirements. It is broader than writing and does not remove the need for human strategy, program design, facts, finance, relationships, review, and approval.

AI Judge is AutoGrant's pursuit-decision capability. It evaluates eligibility, mission alignment, capacity, competitive position, strategic value, risk, readiness, and evidence confidence, then presents a transparent recommendation and conditions.

No. It supports a disciplined pursuit decision; it does not predict the future or guarantee an award. It uses available evidence to expose eligibility, fit, readiness, competitive strengths and weaknesses, strategic value, and information that could change the decision.

Yes. People should be able to inspect the rationale, correct context, add relationship knowledge, change the decision, and record why.

No. It carries research, structuring, drafting, checking, coordination, and tracking work. People retain strategy, relationships, program and technical design, facts, evidence, budgets, ethics, final quality, authorization, and accountability.

For an organization without a formal team, AutoGrant can make a broader capability accessible, but a named internal owner and human participation remain necessary.

The organizational profile can use approved prior proposals, program materials, reports, leadership language, technical documents, publications, and other sources. Drafts remain editable and must be checked for generic language, stale claims, and unsupported certainty.

It should ground work in approved sources and expose uncertainty. A person must verify every material fact, number, citation, result, and commitment. No AI system should be treated as the final source of truth.

No application is submitted without explicit authorization from a named person. AutoGrant can prepare the package and may support approved workflow or portal steps where enabled, but autonomous final submission is not permitted.

The customer and its professionals remain responsible for funder, institutional, legal, and ethical disclosure requirements. AutoGrant should support transparent records and policy-aligned workflows.

AutoGrant may use approved content inside that customer's workspace to support the work. It does not use customer content to train shared models or inform another customer's workspace.

The customer owns its data, documents, and outputs. The agreement should describe customer-specific configuration and integrations precisely. AutoGrant retains its reusable software, methodology, agent framework, workflows, and generic improvements.

Enterprise may support a dedicated or customer-controlled deployment after architecture, security, model, supportability, and shared-responsibility review.

No. Customer-controlled deployment can align with identity, networking, logging, residency, and governance, but application controls, data use, model connections, administration, release, and operating practices remain shared responsibilities.

AutoGrant can provide current security documentation and support relevant procurement and security review, subject to the engagement and confidentiality requirements.

AutoGrant states its current, verified certification and compliance status in the Security overview rather than in marketing claims. A certification is never inferred from a cloud provider or a customer-controlled environment; request the Security overview for the current answer.

There are three primary paths:

• AutoGrant Platform: hosted by AutoGrant for a grant-seeking organization
• AutoGrant for Consultants: a professional operating model for client work
• AutoGrant Enterprise: dedicated or customer-controlled deployment with organization-specific workflow and governance

AutoGrant first determines which operating model fits, what implementation requires, and which outcome the buyer is trying to create. It then provides clear terms before the buyer proceeds.

No. Enterprise is organization-wide and value-based. It is not metered by seats, applications, departments, legal entities as a billing unit, prompts, words, tokens, or usage.

The conservative recurring value may include capability the organization would otherwise need to build, capacity created for an existing team, hiring deferred, outside spending reduced, rework reduced, and measurable continuity or risk improvements. Value is never double counted. Additional awards are upside rather than the required base case.

No. AutoGrant does not guarantee awards and does not base Enterprise economics on a contingent share of grant funds.

No. It is a licensed product deployment with implementation, configuration, updates, and operating terms—not an unsupported one-off codebase.

It depends on operating scope, profile readiness, data, workflow, security, integration, deployment, and internal availability. AutoGrant provides a defined plan and acceptance measures after discovery rather than a generic timeline promise.

A named owner, leadership participation, approved organizational context, access to program and financial reviewers, real opportunities, and agreement on human roles and data use.

No, but someone must own the function. A smaller organization may combine roles. AutoGrant cannot replace leadership, facts, program design, finance, relationships, or accountability.

AutoGrant is the grant intelligence and operating-workflow layer. It may reduce spreadsheets, document chaos, disconnected AI chats, and manual trackers. Official finance, research, procurement, document, CRM, or submission systems may remain authoritative.

AutoGrant maintains a current integration list with clear status labels rather than implying universal integration. Enterprise integrations are defined during architecture and workflow design.

No. Target buyers include nonprofits, local governments, rural healthcare, research institutions, startups and SBIR/STTR companies, social-impact companies, tribal organizations, and grant consultants.

The consultant path is designed to support professional workflows, distinct client context, scoring, requirements, drafting, review, approval, and portfolio visibility. Ask for the current status of specific multi-client, portal, partner, referral, and white-label capabilities during a consultant walkthrough.

Yes, when the workflow and deployment fit. Municipalities may use it for project-to-funding strategy, readiness, match, requirements, cross-department coordination, approvals, post-award obligations, and renewal.

Yes, with appropriate data boundaries and human clinical, financial, privacy, and operational review. Regulated-data use must be explicitly supported.

Some programs permit for-profit or small-business applicants; many do not. AutoGrant helps identify the applicant path and strategic fit, but the company remains responsible for legal and program eligibility.

AutoGrant publishes only verified, permissioned evidence. Grant outcomes arrive on funder timelines and depend on decisions outside AutoGrant's control. Until mature outcomes exist, buyers should evaluate product workflows, artifacts, operational measures, controls, and defined deliverables.

Ask to see:

• A real AI Judge scorecard
• Sources and assumptions
• Requirements extracted from a real solicitation
• Draft mapped to criteria
• Human review gates
• Submission readiness
• Award-obligation workflow
• Security documentation
• Clear implementation acceptance measures

No. No responsible grant product or professional can control funder budgets, priorities, competition, reviewers, or final decisions.