Write compelling award submissions, grant applications, and competition entries. Maps achievements to selection criteria using evidence-based narratives. Handles business awards (Telstra, chamber of commerce), industry awards, and grant applications. Use when preparing any competitive submission where you need to demonstrate merit against defined criteria.
Produces award submissions and grant applications that address every criterion with quantified evidence. The goal is a document where every paragraph earns points on the scorecard.
Ask the user for:
If the user has a URL for the award, fetch the criteria page. Many awards publish judging guides or past winner profiles — these are gold for understanding what evaluators value.
Create a working table before writing anything:
| Criterion | Key achievement | Evidence/metric | Story or example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation | AI workflow automation | Report time: 3 days to 4 hours | Staff training program, 12 people |
| Growth | Revenue increase | 40% YoY, $X to $Y | New service line launched Q2 |
| Community | Pro bono program | 200 hours, 15 local orgs | Bushfire recovery site builds |
Every criterion must have at least one entry. A blank row means a missing section in the submission — and missing sections lose marks or trigger automatic rejection.
If the user cannot provide evidence for a criterion, flag it explicitly. Better to know the gap now than to submit vague filler.
Address criteria in the exact order they appear on the application form. Judges often score sequentially — don't make them hunt for your answer to criterion 3 buried in the criterion 1 section.
For each criterion, use the STAR structure:
Keep each criterion response self-contained. A judge reading only that section should understand the achievement without needing context from other sections.
The first sentence of every section should be your strongest claim.
Wrong approach:
Founded in 2018, Acme Digital began as a two-person consultancy. Over the following years, we grew steadily, adding new team members and services. In 2025, we achieved significant growth.
Right approach:
Acme Digital grew revenue 40% in 12 months ($850K to $1.19M) while maintaining a 94% client retention rate. This growth came from a deliberate shift into AI-powered automation services, launched in Q1 2025.
Chronology can appear in the body as context, but never as the opening.
Judges compare applicants. Numbers make comparison easy and your claims credible.
| Vague | Quantified |
|---|---|
| "Significant growth" | "Revenue increased 40% ($850K to $1.19M)" |
| "Many clients" | "127 active clients across 3 states" |
| "Improved efficiency" | "Reduced report generation from 3 days to 4 hours" |
| "Community involvement" | "Donated 200 hours of pro bono work to 15 local organisations" |
| "Award-winning team" | "Team of 8, including 2 certified Google Partners and 1 Shopify Expert" |
If exact numbers are not available, use defensible approximations with qualifiers: "approximately", "more than", "over the past 12 months".
Remove adjectives. Replace them with evidence.
| Telling | Showing |
|---|---|
| "We're innovative and forward-thinking" | "Trained 12 staff in AI tools, reducing average report time from 3 days to 4 hours" |
| "We deliver exceptional customer service" | "Net Promoter Score of 72, with 94% client retention over 3 years" |
| "We're passionate about our community" | "Built 6 pro bono websites for Hunter Valley bushfire-affected businesses in 2025" |
Many awards auto-disqualify entries that exceed word limits. If the limit is 500 words, submit 480-500. Using significantly fewer words than allowed leaves points on the table.
When tight on words:
Vague claims without evidence. "We are industry leaders in digital innovation" means nothing without proof. Every claim needs a number, a name, or a specific example.
Hyperbole and superlatives. "The most innovative company in the region" invites scepticism. Let the evidence speak — if it is the strongest entry, the judges will reach that conclusion themselves.
Missing selection criteria. Even one unaddressed criterion can mean rejection. If you genuinely have nothing for a criterion, acknowledge it honestly and pivot to what you do have: "While we have not yet expanded internationally, our domestic growth of 40% positions us for..."
Company history dump. Founding date, mission statement, and values belong in a one-sentence context line, not a full paragraph. Judges want achievements, not autobiography.
Passive voice and hedging. "It is believed that our approach may have contributed to improved outcomes" vs "Our approach cut processing time by 60%." Be direct.
Too vague:
Acme Digital is committed to innovation and staying ahead of industry trends. We regularly explore new technologies and implement cutting-edge solutions for our clients. Our team is passionate about finding better ways to solve problems and we believe innovation is at the core of everything we do.
Right approach:
In Q1 2025, Acme Digital deployed AI-powered content workflows across 40 client accounts, reducing average content production time from 5 days to 8 hours per campaign. The system combines automated research, draft generation, and human editorial review — maintaining quality (client satisfaction held at 4.7/5) while cutting costs 35%. We trained all 12 team members in prompt engineering over a 6-week internal program, making AI literacy a baseline skill rather than a specialist function. Three clients have since adopted similar internal workflows based on our methodology.
The second version names the innovation, quantifies the impact, explains how it was implemented, and shows downstream effects — all in fewer words than the vague version.
First-time applicants: Judges expect polish from repeat entrants. Compensate by being exceptionally specific with evidence. First-timers often win on the strength of a genuine story well told.
Small business competing against large: Don't try to match their scale. Highlight agility, personal service, per-capita impact, and percentage growth (a 40% revenue increase is impressive regardless of starting size).
Resubmitting after a loss: If feedback was provided, address every point raised. If not, strengthen the weakest section and add any new achievements since last submission. Mention continued commitment if appropriate: "Building on our 2025 entry, we have since..."
Multiple categories: Tailor each submission separately. Reusing identical text across categories signals low effort and often misaligns with different criteria weightings.