Completion reports that match the funded project
A public body releasing the final instalment of a grant on the strength of a completion report — and finding, sometimes, that the work described was not the work funded.
Who they are.
A public body that pays grants in two instalments: one on award, the final one on evidence that the work was actually done. That evidence arrives as a completion report, often a year after the application it relates to.
Anonymised at the client’s request. Client names are never disclosed without written permission.
What had to be solved.
Comparing a completion report against an application filed twelve months earlier was manual archaeology. Quantities and equipment in the final invoice were rarely reconciled against the approved quote, so the final instalment was released on a report nobody had cross-checked.
What success looked like.
- Compare the completion file against the original approved application
- Reconcile equipment and quantities against the approved quote
- Release the final instalment on a file that has been checked
What Ceertia does here.
A use case that holds both ends of the project: the approved application and the completion file. Equipment, quantities and amounts in the final invoice are compared against the approved quote, and any divergence is flagged with both source zones cited.
The equipment and quantities in the final invoice must match the approved quote from the original application.
How it runs, step by step.
The file arrives with its documents, in any format, from whoever sends it.
Every page is identified and mapped against the expected document list. Missing documents, duplicates and out-of-scope pages are flagged on receipt.
Each rule asks the file a question and answers it directly on the documents, with page, zone and source text attached to the verdict.
The team approves, requests a fix, or rejects. No file is approved or rejected automatically.
What changed.
Final payments now rest on a reconciled file. The divergences that do appear are specific enough to resolve with the beneficiary rather than to escalate.
- Comparing a completion report against an application filed a year earlier was manual archaeology.
- Quantities and equipment in the final invoice were rarely reconciled with the approved quote.
- The final instalment was released on a report nobody had cross-checked.
- Ceertia compares completion documents against the original approved application.
- Divergence in equipment, quantity or amount is flagged with both source zones.
- The final payment rests on a reconciled file, with the evidence stored.
Anonymised case. Client names are never disclosed without written permission. Figures describe the file volumes and checks in this scenario.
Other files, same engine.
A regional grant programme receiving most of its applications in the final ten 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 two different programmes, but reviewed each application in isolation.
Read the case →See it run on your own files.
Bring one real file to a 30-minute demo. Watch the verification run, evidence on screen.