Completion reports that match the funded project
A public body releasing the final installment of a grant on the strength of a completion report, and finding, sometimes, that the work described was not the work funded.
The situation
A public body that pays grants in installments: one on award, the final one on evidence that the work was actually done. That evidence arrives as a completion report, long after the application it relates to.
Comparing a completion report against an application filed long before was manual archaeology. Quantities and equipment in the final invoice were rarely reconciled against the approved quote, so the final installment was released on a report nobody had cross-checked.
The rule Ceertia applies
The equipment and quantities in the final invoice must match the approved quote from the original application.
How it runs
The case arrives from whoever sends it, with the completion reports, final invoices, site photos, original application, approved quotes and inspection notes. Anything missing is flagged on receipt.
Each rule returns a verdict with its evidence: what Ceertia saw, where, and why it concluded. Every verdict is stored with its rule version, source excerpt and timestamp. A use case that holds both ends of the project: the approved application and the completion report. Equipment, quantities and amounts in the final invoice are compared against the approved quote, and any divergence is flagged with both sources cited.
Your team keeps the decision, on sourced evidence, with a full audit log.
What changes in the work
- Comparing a completion report against an application filed long before was manual archaeology.
- Quantities and equipment in the final invoice were rarely reconciled with the approved quote.
- The final installment was released on a report nobody had cross-checked.
- Ceertia compares the completion report against the original approved application.
- Divergence in equipment, quantity or amount is flagged with both sources.
- The final payment rests on a reconciled case, with the evidence stored.
Your team keeps the decision, on sourced evidence, with a full audit log.
A regional grant program receiving most of its applications in the final days before a statutory deadline.
Read the case GrantsThe same project, funded twice, caught before paymentA subsidy authority that suspected some projects were being claimed under more than one program, but reviewed each application in isolation.
Read the case