Math Grant Structure

Contract

• Input: research programme + target agency.
• Output: structured proposal draft + reviewer critique.
• Side effects: none.
• Dependencies: none.
• Stop condition: draft + critique + checklist.
• Risk: low.
• Boundary: produces draft text; the human submits.

Math Grant Proposal Structuring

Turn a research programme into a grant proposal that matches the agency's review criteria — and stress-test it from the reviewer's chair.

When to use

• The user is preparing an NSF / ERC / Simons / MSCA / NSERC application.
• A research group needs a multi-PI budget narrative.
• An early-career researcher is drafting a starter grant.

Process

1. Read the call

Extract:

• Award type — individual, collaborative, postdoc, equipment.
• Review criteria — intellectual merit / broader impacts (NSF), excellence / impact (ERC), etc.
• Page limits — exact numbers per section.
• Required attachments — biosketch, DMP, budget justification, letters.
• Deadlines — internal + external.

Completion criterion: requirements checklist saved.

2. Articulate the programme

• Central question in one sentence.
• Why now — what changed (new theorem, new technique, new data).
• Aims — 3–5 specific, measurable aims.
• Approach — methods, expected obstacles, alternatives.

Completion criterion: programme stated concretely; aims measurable.

3. Map to criteria

For each aim, state:

• How it advances intellectual merit (or equivalent).
• How it advances broader impacts (or equivalent).
• What deliverables (preprints, talks, software, mentoring) result.

Completion criterion: each aim maps to a criterion explicitly.

4. Budget and timeline

• Personnel — PI, postdocs, grad students; named or TBD.
• Travel — conferences, collaboration visits.
• Equipment — compute, software licences.
• Indirect costs — per agency rules.
• Timeline — Gantt-style milestones per year.

Completion criterion: budget matches agency categories; timeline realistic.

5. Reviewer-perspective critique

Write the critique as if reviewing:

• Strengths — what makes the proposal stand out; which aims are most credible; which broader impacts are most concrete.
• Weaknesses — where the logic is thin; which budget items are under-justified; where the timeline is unrealistic.
• Questions — what the reviewer would ask; write answers in advance.
• Verdict — recommend approve / revise / decline, with explicit conditions.

Completion criterion: critique written with strengths, weaknesses, questions, verdict.

6. Submission checklist

• All required sections present and within page limits.
• Biosketch / CV updated and formatted.
• Budget justification matches budget table.
• Data-management plan saved.
• References complete (no missing citations).
• All co-PIs have confirmed contribution.
• Letters of collaboration / support saved.
• Proposal compiled to PDF with correct margins and fonts.
• Submitted by deadline; confirmation saved.

Completion criterion: all boxes checked; checklist saved.

7. Deliver

Markdown artifact with: call analysis, programme, aims mapping, budget, timeline, reviewer critique (strengths/weaknesses/questions/verdict), submission checklist.

Completion criterion: deliverable complete and reviewed by at least one co-author or mentor before submission.