Compare grant guidelines without mixing programmes

The recovered country and regional guidelines describe different calls issued in 2021–2023. Use a versioned comparison card to distinguish who could apply, what support was described and how selection worked. These documents do not establish an open application window today.

New explanation and worked examples by the editorial team.

The diagram in words: Programme and dated edition → Applicant, activity and support → Verified route before any application.

Begin with identity and scope

Write the programme, country or regional scope, issuer, document language, printed date and source version. The Kenya document of 22 December 2021 concerns civic technology in the context of the 2022 elections. The SADC document of 28 March 2023 concerns a regional call. A shared project name does not make their requirements interchangeable.

Separate the applicant from the proposed activity

Check organisation type, geographic eligibility, registration or other qualifications, then compare the proposed activity with the call’s priorities. Eligibility of an organisation does not itself mean a particular project is eligible or likely to be selected. Retain exact qualifiers instead of merging several calls into a universal checklist.

Support, costs and selection are different fields

Record support described in that edition, any financial range, cost rules, expected duration, screening, due diligence and award steps. A published amount is not a current offer or approval. A preliminary selection is not a final contract. If a figure cannot be read reliably, leave it unresolved rather than converting a guess into a headline.

A fictional comparison you can complete

Card A: Kenya, 22 December 2021, election-related context. Card B: SADC, 28 March 2023, regional context. The comparison identifies different scopes before evaluating a fictional project. The current opening status for each is “not established by this document”. A present application requires a separately verified named opportunity, rules, deadline and submission route.

Document-language and file variants

Keep the English and French AGA and AUCTF editions linked with their printed identities; do not assume equal page numbers across translations. Several downloaded AUCTF files have different checksums while showing the same dated cycle. Check the relevant clause rather than counting each byte variant as a new programme.

Finish with a decision record

Use fields for scope, applicant criterion, activity criterion, support, costs, selection stage, deadline and source page. Add a reviewer and an unresolved-question column. This original preparation method helps compare documents without resurrecting expired forms or promising government support.