# Scan: AI Grant Consultant > GAMMA-Ray v0.0.155 (beta, for review; every rating is experimental). An example GAMMA-Ray beta rating of AI Grant Consultant: freedom 2 across its configurations; deployment governance not assessed. > Page: https://gamma-ray.sgit.ai/scans/granter-ai-grant-consultant/ · Source: data/scans/granter-ai-grant-consultant.json Example · beta rating · a product as its vendor documents it · read 2026-11-10 · not seen by the vendor Chat-based agent, onboarded with the organisation's details and past applications, that matches funding calls, checks eligibility and admissibility, drafts applications section by section with playbooks, scores drafts with an Evaluator, and supports post-approval reporting. The user submits the application. A scan of a product as its vendor documents it, not of any one deployment. Made by the report studio: a researcher-assessor, a challenger, then the scorer. Part of the first Portuguese cohort. Built only from Granter's own public pages (product, documentation, blog, customer stories, legal and security pages). Nothing was tested. If you are the vendor and something here is wrong, the correction will be made and dated. *Figure. The label for this rating; its contents are in the text.* 2 Freedom as shipped Suggests 2 Freedom at most Suggests 6 Controls it brings as shipped n/a Deployment governance not assessed ## How to read it This is a product, not a deployment. A product has no owner, no policy in force and no mandate until somebody runs it, so it is given **no governance level and no level held**: those belong to a deployment. What a product has is a freedom level for each way it can be configured, and a list of the controls each configuration brings. *Figure. The freedom level of each configuration; the table has the same.* | Configuration | What changes | Freedom | Controls | Turned on by the operator | |---|---|---|---|---| | **As shipped** | AI Grant Consultant with its documented defaults. | 2 Suggests | 6 | nothing | The same product is a different agent in each row. A rating of a deployment starts by saying which row it is. An indicator with no evidence is reported as not evidenced; it is never read as a no. ## The profile *Figure. One square per indicator, by question; every answer is listed below.* ## The grant: what it can actually do The questions measure what is said about an agent: its purpose, its rules, its controls. The grant is the other half: what its permissions let it do, capability by capability, and what stands in the way of each. This is RiskMandate's measurement, and it depends on the permissions a deployment was given. **Not measured.** Not measured. No deployment shape for this product is published in the capability grammar. ## Seen, and not credited - I47 (a limit on it is a rule in prose) The privacy policy sentence 'the platform does not take decisions about you on its own' is a data-protection statement about decisions concerning the data subject, not a limit on what the agent may do. The blog FAQ line 'access to submission-platform accounts is restricted for Granter' is an access restriction, not a prose rule of the expectation kind; neither is credited. [Source](https://granter.ai/privacy-policy) - I11 from the CORDIS tool (the agent reads the EU's public database of funded projects through a dedicated tool) The page does not say whether this is a live connection across a trust boundary or Granter's own copy of public data; not stretched into Reach 2. [Source](https://granter.ai/blog/ai-grant-consultant) ## What its evidence reaches *Figure. The mashup graph with this agent's evidenced indicators lit.* ## Every answer, with its source ### What is the agent built on? - *Not evidenced.* It is a vendor's assistant, used as supplied. - *Not evidenced.* It runs on an AI platform with the organisation's own data, without executing arbitrary code. - *Not evidenced.* It is configured on a low-code or no-code builder and acts on real organisational data. - *Not evidenced.* It generates and executes code with local or cloud privileges. - *Not evidenced.* It is built in-house: the organisation controls its identity, tools and boundaries. ### Does it act, or only answer and recommend? - *Not evidenced.* It follows fixed rules, with no reasoning. - **As shipped.** It retrieves information and recommends actions; a person acts. The product page says the agent finds calls, checks eligibility and runs an Evaluator that shows what to improve; the user selects the opportunity and makes the submission. [Source](https://granter.ai/blog/ai-grant-consultant) (documented) - *Not evidenced.* It executes actions itself. - **In this deployment.** It is in production: a public source names a customer or gives usage figures for what it does on its own. Granter's case study (vendor's account) names one customer, the Super Bock Group, whose R&D and innovation team used the AI Grant Consultant to draft one FCT doctoral scholarship application and then submitted it themselves, from initial draft to submission in under 72 hours; it gives no usage counts. [Source](https://granter.ai/case-studies/superbock) (documented) ### How far does it reach? - **As shipped.** It works in one domain's data. The agent works in one domain: public and private funding calls at regional, national and EU level. [Source](https://granter.ai/blog/ai-grant-consultant) (documented) - *Not evidenced.* It works across several domains or systems. - *Not evidenced.* It connects to external tools or services across a trust boundary. ### Does it work with other agents? - *Not evidenced.* Several agents coordinate inside the organisation. - *Not evidenced.* Agents operate across organisational boundaries or disparate stacks. - *Not evidenced.* There is a published protocol or communication layer between agents. - *Not evidenced.* Others build on it: third parties publish integrations, skills or agents for it. - *Not evidenced.* It exposes an agent interface: a published MCP server, an agent card, or an API documented for agents to call. ### What is the person's role? - *Not evidenced.* The person operates: every action is prompted and controlled by them. - **As shipped.** The agent suggests; the person reviews and approves each action. The privacy policy, which covers the whole Granter platform and does not name the agent, says the platform's AI search, drafts, analyses and recommendations are suggestions that users review and approve before any submission or decision; it does not say each step is approved separately. [Source](https://granter.ai/privacy-policy) (documented) - *Not evidenced.* The agent handles routine tasks; the person is consulted on exceptions. - *Not evidenced.* The agent works independently; the person approves critical decisions only. - *Not evidenced.* The agent has full autonomy within boundaries; the person monitors. ### Is what it is for written down? - **As shipped.** Its purpose and permitted tasks are stated in writing. The product page states the agent's purpose and tasks: find the calls an organisation qualifies for, check eligibility, draft the application against the call's criteria, review it, and manage reporting after approval; its FAQ says the agent does not submit. [Source](https://granter.ai/blog/ai-grant-consultant) (documented) - *Not evidenced.* Its autonomy limits and the tools it may use are defined. - *Not evidenced.* Its limits and known failure cases are documented for those who use it. ### Does it have its own identity and only the access it needs? - *Not evidenced.* What it can reach is enumerated: scopes, permissions, tools. - *Not evidenced.* Its authorisation is published as metadata that anyone can read. - *Not evidenced.* It asks for narrower access than the whole account. - *Not evidenced.* It has its own identity, separate from any person's. - *Not evidenced.* Its identity is cryptographic and can be checked by others. - *Not evidenced.* Its tokens are bound to the service they were issued for and are not passed on. ### Is it in a registry, with an owner? - *Not evidenced.* The organisation keeps a registry of its agents. - *Not evidenced.* Each agent has a named owner. - *Not evidenced.* Agents are retired by a defined process. ### Who is accountable for it? - *Not evidenced.* A named executive or body is accountable for the organisation's agents. - *Not evidenced.* Roles and responsibilities for AI risk are documented. ### Is there a policy that governs it? - *Not evidenced.* A governance policy for agents is published. - *Not evidenced.* Agents and use cases are classed by risk. - *Not evidenced.* The laws that apply to it are identified. - *Not evidenced.* New agents pass an approval or review before they run. ### Can a person step in or stop it? - **As shipped.** High-impact actions need a person's approval. The product page's FAQ says Granter does not submit the application: the user makes the final submission on the funding platform, since access to submission-platform accounts is restricted for Granter; this states who submits, a structural limit on the product, not an approval step. [Source](https://granter.ai/blog/ai-grant-consultant) (documented) - *Not evidenced.* There is a way to pause or stop it. - *Not evidenced.* There is a defined escalation path. ### Is what it does logged? - *Not evidenced.* Its actions are logged. - *Not evidenced.* The log is tamper-evident and kept for a stated time. ### Is it watched while it runs? - *Not evidenced.* It is monitored in operation. - *Not evidenced.* Anomalies are detected in real time and raise alerts. ### What stands between it and what it should not do? - *Not evidenced.* A limit on it is enforced by something outside its own reach. - *Not evidenced.* A limit on it is a setting that its own account could change. - *Not evidenced.* A limit on it is a rule in prose. - *Not evidenced.* Policy is enforced as machine-readable rules. - *Not evidenced.* The difference between what it can reach and what it is for is stated. ### Is it tested, and are the results shown? - *Not evidenced.* Test or evaluation results are published. - *Not evidenced.* It is tested for safety and security, including by attack. - **As shipped.** People who did not build it take part in assessing it. Granter's Navy case study says three Navy units are evaluating the agent in a certification phase for the Navy Tested programme; certification is not yet granted. [Source](https://granter.ai/case-studies/marinha) (documented) ### What happens when it goes wrong? - *Not evidenced.* There is an incident process for agents. - *Not evidenced.* Incidents and errors are communicated to those affected. - *Not evidenced.* There is a plan for a failure of a third party it depends on. ### Do people know it is an AI, and can they answer back? - **As shipped.** It tells the people it talks to that it is an AI. The privacy policy states that AI-generated content is labelled as such inside the platform; it is a label on generated content, not a statement about disclosure in conversation. [Source](https://granter.ai/privacy-policy) (documented) - *Not evidenced.* There is a channel to report problems with it or contest its output. - *Not evidenced.* It is machine-readable for agents: it publishes an llms.txt, an AGENTS.md, an API description or an agent card. ### What data does it use, and under what rules? - **As shipped.** The data it uses is described. In a quote on the product page, Granter's CTO says onboarding collects the organisation's information, such as previous applications and institutional data, which the page says the agent then holds as context (vendor's statement). [Source](https://granter.ai/blog/ai-grant-consultant) (documented) - *Not evidenced.* There are data quality rules for what it reads. - *Not evidenced.* Its privacy risk has been examined. ### What does it depend on from others? - *Not evidenced.* The models and third-party components it uses are listed. - *Not evidenced.* Third-party components are monitored and have risk controls. ### Has anyone independent checked? - *Not evidenced.* A public certificate or audit report covers it. - *Not evidenced.* Compliance evidence is produced continuously, ready for a regulator. ### Is the organisation behind it ready? - *Not evidenced.* There is a stated strategy for agents. - *Not evidenced.* The people who work with it are trained. - **As shipped.** Its value is measured. Under 'Early Results', the Navy case study reports two pilot figures, over 200 opportunities added to a defence grants database and first drafts labelled 2w to 2h, with no method or baseline stated (vendor-reported). [Source](https://granter.ai/case-studies/marinha) (documented) - *Not evidenced.* It is improved on a regular cycle. - *Not evidenced.* The organisation's risk management covers agents. ## The vault This rating, its evidence list, its grant and the questions it was made against are kept in a public sgit vault (`8fffssyc`, published 2026-11-10). Anyone can read it with this key: `sgit_public_read_d27a5608316451eb20fa628b9943960a7bc8a33709127d6c373b26afca8aeb4e:8fffssyc` With [sgit](https://sgit.ai/): `sgit clone sgit_public_read_d27a5608316451eb20fa628b9943960a7bc8a33709127d6c373b26afca8aeb4e:8fffssyc`. The key reads; it cannot write. An operator who wants to add what only they hold forks the vault into a private one.