The question this answers:
How do you stop eligibility decisions depending on who happens to be applying the rules?
What the problem looks like without eligibility designed to remove staff interpretation
An applicant calls the enquiries line. “Am I eligible?” The staff member checks the guidelines, makes a judgment, says yes.
A different applicant calls with a similar question. A different staff member checks the same guidelines, reads them slightly differently, says no.
Now you have two organisations in similar situations, treated differently, with no documentation of why. When one of them complains, you can’t explain the inconsistency. Because the eligibility rules required interpretation. Different people interpreted them differently.
The usual fix is training, checklists, escalation paths. But that’s treating the symptom. The problem is the rules themselves weren’t designed to be black and white.
What I deliver
An operational eligibility structure that removes the need for staff judgement on routine eligibility decisions. That means:
- Eligibility criteria defined so they can be verified, not interpreted
- Binary rules where possible (registered/not registered, ABN active/inactive, within region/outside region)
- Edge cases pre-resolved at design, not left for staff to figure out
- Verification built into the application form and system, not dependent on staff checks
- Escalation reserved for genuine exceptions, not routine ambiguity
The goal is eligibility outcomes determined by design, not by who happens to be on the enquiries line that day.
What good looks like vs what bad looks like
Bad: “Eligible applicants must demonstrate alignment with the program objectives and have capacity to deliver.”
This requires interpretation. Every staff member will read it differently. Every applicant will argue their case differently. You’ve created a judgement call where you needed a gate.
Good:
| Policy intent | Eligibility rule | Verification | Why it’s hard to game |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Established business” | Trading 2+ years | 8 consecutive BAS statements | ATO-lodged, consistent history, hard to manufacture |
| “Genuine employees” | Staff on payroll | STP summary from accounting software | Reported to ATO, not self-declared |
| “Actual trading activity” | Revenue above threshold | Bank statements matching BAS figures | Cross-referenced, not single source |
| “Local operator” | Business address in region | Utility bills + ABN address + bank statement address | Multiple sources must align |
| “Not a shell entity” | Evidence of ongoing operations | Combination: BAS + payroll + supplier invoices over 12 months | Pattern of activity, not single document |
| “Not already funded” | No current or recent funding from this program | Checked against recipient database | Your own records, fully reliable |
The principle: triangulate. No single document trusted alone. History beats registration. ATO-reported beats self-declared. Multiple sources must align.
Routine eligibility is determined by verifiable evidence that cross-references, not single documents that can be faked. Staff time is reserved for genuine exceptions, not interpreting vague criteria that should have been specific from the start.
Why it matters
Every eligibility decision that relies on staff interpretation is a consistency risk, a complaint risk, and a workload burden.
If two similar applicants can get different answers depending on who they speak to, you don’t have an eligibility framework. You have a lottery.
Designing eligibility to remove interpretation doesn’t mean removing all human involvement. It means reserving human involvement for where it’s actually needed, and letting clear rules handle the rest.
The result: faster decisions, fewer complaints, defensible outcomes, and staff freed up from routine judgement calls they shouldn’t have to make.
Other Eligibility Design Deliverables
“Why Are Ineligible Applicants Still Getting Through?” → Front-end eligibility logic built into the application pathway so ineligible applicants are filtered before they invest time and before staff need to intervene. The program enforces its own rules rather than relying on staff to catch what the design should have prevented.
“Why do your eligibility rules sound clear but resolve nothing?” → Eligibility rules designed to be genuinely binary, including explicit treatment of edge cases and commonly disputed scenarios. The hard decisions are made during design, documented, and defensible. When a borderline case arrives, the answer already exists.
