The question this answers:
How do I explain these changes to my executive, my minister, or my audit committee?
What the problem looks like without a change summary you can use for briefings
You’ve had the guidelines rewritten. They’re clearer now. But when your director asks what changed, you don’t have a concise answer.
When the minister’s office wants to know why the guidelines look different, you’re scrambling to reconstruct the logic. When audit asks whether the changes affected eligibility, you’re not sure how to respond.
The work is done, but you can’t explain it quickly or confidently.
What I deliver actually is
A short, structured document that explains:
- What was changed (structure, language, eligibility framing, key sections)
- Why it was changed (clarity, compliance, applicant feedback, reducing enquiries)
- What stayed the same (policy intent, eligibility boundaries, assessment approach)
- Any risks or sensitivities (changes that might attract attention, things stakeholders should be aware of)
It’s written for people who won’t read the full guidelines but need to understand and approve the changes. One to two pages. Plain language. Ready to attach to a brief or include in a governance pack.
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: “The guidelines have been updated to improve clarity and ensure alignment with best practice.”
This tells the reader nothing. It’s filler.
Good:
| What changed | Why | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility section moved to front of document | Applicants were reading 10 pages before finding out if they qualified | Reduced enquiries expected; no change to who is eligible |
| Removed references to “demonstrable alignment with policy objectives” | Applicants didn’t understand what this meant; assessors interpreted it inconsistently | Replaced with three specific criteria; same intent, clearer language |
| Added examples of eligible and ineligible projects | Applicant feedback indicated confusion about scope | Reduced ambiguity; may slightly increase applications from borderline cases |
| No change to funding amounts, assessment criteria, or timeline | N/A | Policy settings unchanged |
This gives a busy executive what they need to understand the changes, ask smart questions, and approve with confidence.
Why it matters
Rewriting guidelines is only half the job. The other half is bringing stakeholders with you.
A change summary protects the work you’ve done. It means you can answer questions quickly, defend decisions confidently, and avoid the impression that changes were made without proper consideration.
It also creates a record. When someone asks in two years why the guidelines look different from the original policy, you have a document that explains the logic.
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.
“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.
“Can you prove what changed in your grant guidelines?” → 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.
