How grant advisers and software should be reviewed, from inclusion to expiry

This method reviews grant advisers, tools and related suppliers for a defined English business use case. It requires public inclusion rules, consistent tests, evidence beside every score and disclosure of commercial interests. A desk review cannot support claims about performance that was never observed.

What to take away

Publish inclusion rules, consistent tests and evidence beside every score before contacting any provider.
A desk review cannot support claims about performance that was never observed.
Disclose payments, affiliate links, gifts, employment, investments and personal relationships to protect review integrity.
Set an expiry for each verdict and repeat entity, product, fee, term and privacy checks before republishing.
Avoid an overall numerical score when material categories cannot be assessed on the same evidence.

Define scope and inclusion

State the grant type, applicant, project stage, geography and decision. Publish how candidates were found and the research date. Include a provider only when its current public information identifies a relevant service and a verifiable business or practitioner.

Keep an exclusion log. Do not include a company because it paid, offered free access or ranked highly in search results. Disclose any benefit or relationship.

Verify identity and claims

Record the trading and contracting names, official website, company number where applicable, address and named service contacts. Use Companies House for filed company information, while recognising that registration is not a quality mark.

Classify evidence as first party, official record, direct test, checked reference, public review or reviewer judgement. Do not turn provider claims into independent findings. Ask for the method behind award totals, success rates and customer numbers.

Use consistent criteria

Set criteria and weights before provider contact. Typical areas are use-case fit, named competence, method, capacity, evidence control, security, fees, contract, conflicts and exit. Define each scoring level and any mandatory pass condition.

Use the same brief, questions and test tasks. Note plan differences that prevent like-for-like comparison. A missing public price is not automatically a high price; mark it unverified and obtain a quotation.

Disclose testing

For each provider, state whether the review used public pages, a demonstration, trial, paid sample, reference calls or live delivery. Record dates, duration, people, data and limitations.

Test software permissions, version history, exports, recovery and deletion. Test an adviser with a realistic project brief and assess whether the response identifies poor fit and missing evidence as well as strengths.

Protect review integrity

Writers and reviewers declare payments, affiliate links, gifts, employment, investments and personal relationships. A commercial team cannot change inclusion, factual scoring or verdict.

The CMA publishes guidance for review publishers, brands and content creators, including material on genuine reviews and incentives. The CAP Code addresses evidence for objective advertising claims.

Review and correct

Have a second person reproduce material checks and calculations. Give named providers a factual correction route, set a response deadline and keep editorial control. Publish material corrections with their date and reason.

Write the result

Describe the evidence before the verdict. Identify the use case, strongest supported fit, unresolved conditions and areas left untested. Avoid an overall numerical score when material categories cannot be assessed on the same evidence.

Use exact language for test depth. "Public page checked" means the reviewer saw the public page. "Trial tested" should name the plan, duration and tasks. "Used for a live application" should state the application stage and whether an award decision was part of the review.

Allow the provider to challenge factual errors, but do not offer approval rights over scoring or conclusion. Record its response and link supporting corrections.

Retain evidence

Keep dated page captures where permitted, quotations, test notes, calculation sheets, correspondence, disclosures and review approvals. Protect customer and commercially sensitive information. Another editor should be able to retrace every material claim without guessing which source was used.

Set an expiry for each verdict. Repeat entity, product, fee, term and privacy checks before republishing. This methodology draft contains no live internal links and remains on hold until an editorial owner approves the scoring rubric and disclosure process.

Before you act

State the grant type, applicant, project stage, geography and decision.
Keep an exclusion log and disclose any benefit or relationship.
Set criteria and weights before provider contact.
Record dates, duration, people, data and limitations for each test.
Give providers a factual correction route with a response deadline.
Set an expiry for each verdict before republishing.

Common questions

What should a reviewer do when a provider does not publish its price?

A missing public price is not automatically a high price. Mark it unverified and obtain a quotation. The article says to note plan differences that prevent like-for-like comparison, and to ask for the method behind award totals, success rates and customer numbers.

How should test depth be described in the written result?

Use exact language for test depth. Public page checked means the reviewer saw the public page. Trial tested should name the plan, duration and tasks. Used for a live application should state the application stage and whether an award decision was part of the review.

What evidence should be retained after a review is published?