How to Review and Revise Your Proposal Using GrantCraft's Step 8

Why the Review Step Is the Most Important Step

Ask any experienced grant writer what separates funded proposals from rejected ones, and most will point to the revision process. First drafts, no matter how carefully written, contain inconsistencies, unclear passages, unsupported claims, and formatting issues that weaken the proposal. Step 8 of the GrantCraft Proposal Builder provides a structured review process that helps you identify and fix these issues before your proposal reaches a reviewer's desk.

Many grant writers skip or rush the review step because they are exhausted from writing and running up against the deadline. This is a mistake. A proposal that is 90 percent complete and poorly reviewed will score lower than a proposal that is 85 percent as ambitious but thoroughly polished. Reviewers notice careless errors, and those errors erode confidence in your organization's ability to manage a grant responsibly.

What Step 8 Provides

Step 8 of the Proposal Builder presents your complete proposal across all previous steps and provides prompts for systematic review. Rather than re-reading your proposal from start to finish, which often causes you to overlook the same issues you missed during writing, Step 8 guides you through targeted review passes that focus on specific aspects of quality.

Review Pass 1: Completeness

The first review pass checks whether every section of your proposal is complete. This sounds basic, but missing sections or incomplete content is one of the most common reasons proposals score poorly. Federal proposals are sometimes screened out entirely if required sections are missing.

Go through each step of the builder and verify that all fields are filled, all prompts are addressed, and no sections have placeholder text or notes to yourself. The GrantCraft Readiness Checklist is a valuable companion for this pass, providing an additional verification that all required elements are in place.

Common Completeness Issues

Empty or placeholder text in one or more sections
Budget categories with no justification narrative
Evaluation plan that describes what will be measured but not how
Organizational capacity section that lists staff names without qualifications
Missing connection between the need statement and objectives

Review Pass 2: Consistency

The second pass checks for consistency across sections. Grant proposals are built in pieces, often over days or weeks, and inconsistencies creep in as you revise one section without updating others. Common inconsistency problems include:

Numbers that do not match: The narrative says you will serve 200 participants but the budget is calculated for 150.
Terminology shifts: You refer to the same group as "youth," "adolescents," and "young people" in different sections without consistency.
Timeline conflicts: The project design describes a three-year timeline but the objectives reference a two-year endpoint.
Budget-narrative disconnect: The narrative mentions a full-time evaluator but the budget includes only a part-time consultant.
Objective-evaluation mismatch: An objective promises to measure participant satisfaction but the evaluation plan does not describe a satisfaction survey.

Step 8 helps you catch these issues by presenting all sections together so you can cross-reference content across the proposal. Read through the need statement, then check that every issue identified in the need statement is addressed by an objective. Check that every objective has corresponding activities in the project design and corresponding measures in the evaluation plan. Check that every activity has budget support.

Review Pass 3: Persuasiveness

The third pass evaluates the persuasive power of your writing. This is where you step back from the details and read your proposal as a reviewer would, looking for sections that are weak, vague, or unconvincing.

Key questions for this pass include:

Does the need statement create a compelling case for action, or does it just list statistics?
Are the objectives ambitious enough to justify the funding request?
Does the project design describe a program that sounds like it would actually work?
Does the budget demonstrate careful planning and efficient use of resources?
Does the evaluation plan sound rigorous enough to produce credible results?
Does the organizational capacity section inspire confidence?

The GrantCraft Tips section provides specific advice for strengthening each section's persuasive impact. If a section feels flat after this review pass, consult the tips for targeted improvement strategies. Our guide on narrative strategy and reviewer psychology offers additional insights on what makes proposals persuasive.

Review Pass 4: Technical Accuracy

The fourth pass focuses on technical details: grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting, and mathematical accuracy. These may seem minor, but technical errors create a negative impression and can raise questions about your attention to detail.

Check all calculations in the budget, including totals, subtotals, and percentage calculations. Verify that all data citations include sources. Confirm that acronyms are defined on first use. Check for consistent formatting of headings, bullet points, and paragraph spacing. Read the entire proposal aloud to catch awkward phrasing and run-on sentences.

Review Pass 5: Funder Alignment

The final pass evaluates how well your proposal aligns with the specific funder's priorities and requirements. Re-read the funder's guidelines or NOFO alongside your proposal. Check that you have addressed every required section, that your language reflects the funder's stated priorities, and that you have not exceeded page limits or formatting requirements.

If the funder publishes review criteria with point values, evaluate your proposal against those criteria. Ask yourself how many points you would award each section if you were a reviewer. This exercise often reveals sections that need additional development to score competitively. For more on understanding the review process, see our guide on peer review and resubmission strategy.

Getting External Feedback

After completing your self-review in Step 8, seek external feedback. Share your proposal with at least two reviewers: one who is familiar with grant writing and one who is not. The grant-savvy reviewer will catch technical issues and strategic weaknesses. The non-expert reviewer will tell you whether the proposal is clear and compelling to someone without specialized knowledge.

Give your reviewers specific questions to answer rather than asking for general impressions. Questions like "Is the connection between the need and our proposed solution clear?" or "Do the budget figures seem reasonable?" produce more useful feedback than "What do you think?"

Making Final Revisions

Incorporate feedback from external reviewers, then do one final read-through in Step 8 before exporting. This final review should be quick and focused on catching any new errors introduced during revision. Once you are satisfied, export the proposal using the builder's export feature and prepare your submission materials.

Step 8 Review Workflow

Pass 1 - Completeness: Verify all sections are filled with no placeholders or missing content.
Pass 2 - Consistency: Cross-reference numbers, terminology, and timelines across all sections.
Pass 3 - Persuasiveness: Evaluate whether each section makes a compelling case.
Pass 4 - Technical accuracy: Check grammar, spelling, calculations, and citations.
Pass 5 - Funder alignment: Verify compliance with all funder requirements and priorities.
External review: Share with at least two reviewers for fresh-eyes feedback.
Final revision: Incorporate feedback and do one last read before export.

Learn more about grant writing strategies at Subthesis.

Ready to build a complete grant writing skill set? The Complete Grant Architect course covers everything from needs assessment to budget construction to post-award management.