Field note · 2026-01-18
Grant budget tables: eligibility claims vs. arithmetic
Funding panels reject packets that overclaim eligibility as quickly as those that mis-add a line item.
Public and foundation funding applications in Taiwan often fail for two separate reasons that applicants treat as one. The first is arithmetic: subtotals that do not sum, currency conversions that drift, and contingency lines that exceed the program’s published cap. The second is eligibility: cost categories that sound related to the project but sit outside the call’s allowed uses.
We review budget tables with both lenses. Arithmetic comes first because it is objective. Eligibility comes next, against the call text you provide—not against a general sense of what “should” be fundable. If the call excludes hospitality, removing a reception line is cheaper than defending it in a clarification round.
Attach the same personnel rates across forms. When the narrative says two part-time coordinators and the budget shows one full-time salary, panels notice. When matching funds are claimed, show the source letter; do not rely on a future intention.
A clean grant packet is not the most ambitious one. It is the packet whose claims can be verified against the call without charitable interpretation.