The question this answers:
How do we run the panel so decisions are fair and defensible?
What the problem looks like without panel process and documentation templates
Your assessment panel meets. There’s discussion. Someone takes notes. Recommendations are made. Applications are funded.
Eighteen months later, an FOI request asks for the panel minutes. The notes say “Panel agreed Application 47 should be funded.” Nothing about why. Nothing about what was discussed. Nothing about how it compared to Application 48, which wasn’t funded.
The decision might have been perfectly sound. But the record doesn’t show it. And in the absence of a record, the decision looks arbitrary.
What I deliver is
A complete panel process, including:
- Panel structure: Who’s on the panel, their roles, how conflicts are managed
- Deliberation process: How applications are discussed, in what order, what must be covered
- Decision rules: How recommendations are made (consensus, majority, chair decides)
- Documentation requirements: What must be recorded, at what level of detail, by whom
Plus ready-to-use templates:
- Panel minutes template: Structured to capture reasoning, not just outcomes
- Individual assessment record: For each assessor to document their scores and rationale
- Conflict of interest declaration: For panel members to sign
- Decision summary: For each application, recording score, recommendation, and key reasons
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: Minutes that say: “The panel reviewed 45 applications. 12 were recommended for funding. The remaining applications were not recommended.”
This documents outcomes. It doesn’t document reasoning. It can’t survive scrutiny.
Good:
Panel minutes template (excerpt):
| Application | Scores (Assessor 1 / 2 / 3) | Panel discussion summary | Recommendation | Key reasons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| App 47 | 4.2 / 4.0 / 4.4 | Strong alignment with priority area. Panel noted clear evidence of community consultation. Minor concern about timeline feasibility; applicant’s track record provides confidence. | Fund | High community benefit; strong capacity; realistic budget |
| App 48 | 3.8 / 3.6 / 4.0 | Good project design but limited evidence of need. Panel discussed whether letters of support were sufficient; agreed evidence fell short of threshold. | Do not fund | Insufficient evidence of community need; did not meet minimum on criterion 1 |
Now the record shows what was considered, what concerns were raised, and why the decision was made.
Why it matters
Decisions that feel sound in the room must be reconstructable from the record. That’s not just good practice. It’s the standard that audit, ombudsman, and FOI will hold you to.
A structured panel process ensures the right things are discussed. Templates ensure the right things are recorded. Together, they protect the panel members, the program, and the integrity of the decisions.
When someone asks “why didn’t we get funded?”, you want to be able to answer with specifics, not vague references to “a competitive process.”
Other Assessment Design Deliverables
Does Your Assessment Framework Pick the Right Applications? → Assessment criteria engineered backwards from program intent. Every criterion exists because a funding decision depends on it. Weightings and decision logic are structural, not advisory. The framework makes the decision architecture visible so assessors execute programme logic rather than substitute their own.
Do Your Assessment Scores Mean What You Think They Mean? → A scoring architecture where each level is defined by an evidence threshold, not a adjective. Assessors match evidence to descriptors. There is no interpretation step. Score variation becomes a design failure to fix, not a moderation problem to manage.
