Grant application review
Northstar keeps eligibility, rubric scores, notes, conflicts, comparison, and decision history inside a reviewer-led process.
Interactive no-backend prototypeWorking prototype
Every control below changes local browser state. Use the navigation inside the product, complete the sample workflow, and reset it whenever you want to replay the story.
Use the reset control inside the application to return to the seed scenario.Loading prototype… / Cargando prototipo…
Starting point
In this fictional foundation, proposal files lived in shared folders while eligibility checks, scores, notes, and conflicts lived in separate spreadsheets and documents.
Program staff could assemble a final meeting packet, but tracing why one application needed discussion or whether every reviewer used the same rubric took additional work.
Customer ask
The modeled brief asks for one review desk with explicit eligibility, a shared rubric, reviewer notes, conflict disclosure, comparison, and decision history.
A numeric total can summarize the completed rubric, but it must never become an automatic award recommendation or hide reviewer context.
What we designed
The selected proposal keeps its request, summary, checklist, rubric, notes, and conflict declaration visible at the same time.
Comparison preserves each criterion and note instead of collapsing proposals into a leaderboard. Local save, shortlist, and discussion actions make the workflow tangible without deciding who receives funds.
Scene by scene
Applicant, request, review state, date, and selection remain readable in a real table.
File names did not reveal review readiness or ownership.
Search and select a fictional proposal to load its complete review context.
Eligibility, four rubric criteria, reviewer notes, and conflict disclosure stay visible.
Reviewers returned different evidence for the same decision process.
Adjust scores, complete checks, add notes, and save the browser-local review.
Side-by-side criteria expose differences without turning the total into a winner.
A single ranking obscured what reviewers actually valued or questioned.
Add proposals to the comparison and inspect criterion-level differences.
Every save, shortlist, and discussion request retains actor and time.
Meeting packets captured conclusions but not always the path to them.
Save, shortlist, or request discussion and watch the local history update.
What the concept connects
All organizations, proposals, people, and amounts are fictional. The prototype stores nothing, sends nothing, and never recommends or makes a funding decision.
Next application
Field-service operationsBring the people, records, exceptions, existing tools, and decisions. We will help define the smallest complete application worth building.
Discuss your applicationAfter-School Learning Hub
A neighborhood after-school program pairing academic support with family workshops and youth-led project time.