How It Works
Three steps. Independent review. Consensus findings.
Submit for Review
Your proposal is sent to a panel of six AI experts, each constructed specifically for your grant’s domain, funder, and evaluation criteria. An NIH R01 gets a biostatistician and NIH program officer. An NSF SBIR gets a commercialization reviewer and technical feasibility expert.
Independent Critique + Deliberation
Each reviewer works independently — they can’t see each other’s feedback. Then the panel deliberates, weighing overlapping concerns and severity to produce a single, consensus-ranked list of weaknesses. No groupthink. No anchoring bias.
Targeted Revision
You see every weakness, who raised it, and exactly how to fix it. Respond to each finding, then click one button — your proposal is revised to address every committee finding. Not a blind rewrite. A surgical fix.
Real Examples
What the committee actually catches.
A single perspective might catch one of these. Independent multi-perspective review catches all of them — and consensus ranking tells you which matters most.
“Year 2 budget: $180,000 for personnel”
No justification for 40% increase from Year 1. Missing vendor quotes for equipment.
Budget Analyst, Skeptic, Program Officer
“We will partner with 3 local organizations”
No letters of support, MOUs, or evidence of existing relationships.
Equity Reviewer, Program Officer
“We will evaluate program outcomes annually”
No measurable metrics. No baseline data. No comparison group.
Methods Expert, Domain Expert
Study Section Process
The review you'd get from a study section.
Real grant review panels use 3-5 independent reviewers who score proposals without seeing each other's assessments, then deliberate to produce consensus scores. Granted's Committee Review mirrors this exact process. The only difference? You get it before you submit, not after you're rejected.
~20%
NIH application success rate
#1
Rejection reason: approach not well-developed
8 mo
Avg. time from rejection to resubmission
15 min
Committee Review turnaround