Thirty-Seven Questions Spot-Audit a Project Already in Motion

This checklist compresses the method that “Scout Before You Write,” “The Final Weeks Before Submission Matter More Than the Months After,” and “Build Institutional Award Intelligence” teach, and the scouting report and game plan that method produces, into one checkable reference. Use it to spot-audit a project already in motion, not as a fifth document to fill out from scratch.

Copy the list into your project notes and tick it there. Each item is a question. If you cannot answer one, that is the finding.

Before deciding to write#

• Can we state the scientific proposition in one paragraph without grant language?
• What is the decisive uncertainty the proposed work will reduce?
• What public evidence suggests NIH is an appropriate source of capital for this question?
• Does every PD/PI still hold Early-Stage Investigator status, and is this the mechanism to spend it on?
• What would make us decide not to submit this cycle?

Funded work and competition#

• Have we identified close funded analogs in RePORTER?
• Have we tested the novelty claim against funded work and recent publications?
• Which Institutes have funded adjacent science recently?
• Which Program Officers appear connected to the scientific neighborhood?

Review environment#

• What study sections are plausible based on current CSR descriptions and ART?
• What shared-interest or overlap statements matter?
• What expertise patterns appear across several recent rosters?
• What expertise should we describe in the Assignment Request Form?
• What are the consequences if the application is assigned to an adjacent panel?

Scientific readiness#

• Can a scientist outside the subfield explain the Specific Aims back accurately?
• What are the three score-driving scientific risks?
• Which major claims lack direct evidence?
• Is the project scope appropriate to the mechanism?
• Are the team and environment credible for every critical dependency?
• If there is more than one PI or more than one site, does the leadership plan say who decides, how effort splits, and what happens if a PI leaves, and is there feasibility evidence at every site?
• Do the direct costs, the total costs, and every subaward’s own overhead fit the mechanism, the NOFO’s caps, and the sponsored programs office’s arithmetic?

AI and compliance#

• Are current NIH rules and the exact NOFO being retrieved from authoritative sources?
• Is AI being used for intelligence and limited assistance rather than substantial scientific authorship?
• Are confidential drafts and review materials kept within approved systems?
• Have we separately checked administrative requirements rather than trusting a language model?

Before submission#

• Has the proposal undergone a role-based mock review?
• Have concerns been classified into science, evidence, clarity, fit, and compliance?
• Have we had the appropriate Program Officer conversation?
• Is the Assignment Request Form concise, evidence-based, and free of reviewer targeting?
• Would we still submit if the deadline were two weeks later?

After the review#

• What did the review reveal that the pregame process missed?
• Did actual assignment match the routing hypothesis?
• Which reviewer concerns were anticipated?
• Which concerns were signal, raised by more than one reviewer, carried into the discussion, or tied to a low score, and which were the draw?
• What should change before a resubmission?
• Does the resubmission’s introduction map every score-driving concern to a change and a location?
• Have the application, review, decisions, and outcome been captured for institutional learning?

NIH rules and operational practices change. Check every factual claim about NIH policy or process against the current NIH source before a submission.