The question this answers
What exactly did you change, and why?
What the problem looks like without it tracked-changes version showing the logic behind each edit
You receive rewritten guidelines. They’re better. But you can’t see what changed. You can’t explain to your director which sections were restructured. You can’t show your legal team what was removed. You can’t demonstrate to audit that the changes were deliberate and documented.
You have a better document, but you’ve lost the trail.
What I deliver actually is
A version of the guidelines with every change visible and annotated. That means:
- Track changes showing additions, deletions, and moves
- Comments explaining the rationale for significant edits
- A summary of structural changes (sections moved, merged, or removed)
This isn’t just “track changes on.” It’s a documented editing trail that shows the logic, not just the keystrokes.
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: Track changes turned on, hundreds of edits, no comments, no explanation of what happened or why.
Good:
Original: “Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project aligns with the strategic priorities of the grant program as articulated in the guidelines and satisfies the threshold eligibility requirements.”
Revised: “Your project must address one of the three priority areas listed below, and your organisation must meet the eligibility requirements in Section 2.”
Comment: “Simplified language. ‘Strategic priorities’ replaced with direct reference to priority areas. ‘Threshold eligibility requirements’ replaced with plain reference to Section 2. No change to policy intent.”
This gives stakeholders confidence that changes were considered, not arbitrary.
Why it matters
Rewriting guidelines isn’t just about the final product. It’s about maintaining trust with the people who need to approve, implement, and defend them.
A tracked-changes version shows your working. It lets legal check that nothing substantive was lost. It lets executives see that changes were principled. It gives you a record you can refer back to when questions arise.
Transparency about the editing process is part of the deliverable, not an optional extra.
Other Guidelines Development Deliverables
“Why don’t grant applicants understand your guidelines?” → Guidelines restructured so they communicate program design, not policy language. Applicants understand what the program is for, whether they are a fit, and what evidence they need to provide. Clarity comes from the structural logic behind the guidelines, not from simpler words.
“How do you brief stakeholders on grant guidelines changes?” → A design rationale document that explains the structural decisions behind the guidelines for executives, ministers, audit committees, and internal teams. This is not a summary of what changed. It explains why the program communicates differently and what that solves.
“Are your grant guidelines compliant?” → A compliance review ensuring the redesigned guidelines meet CGRG or relevant state framework requirements. Program design that cannot pass governance review is not usable design.
“Why do grant guidelines get worse each round?” → A design decision record showing the logic behind every structural change, suitable for audit, governance review, or onboarding new program staff. This is not tracked changes on a document. It is a record of why the program communicates the way it does.
