# Pilot User Roles

This is a grounded role-based view of who gets value from GrantFlow in a pilot.

It is written for proposal organizations evaluating the product as a workflow system, not as a generic AI writer.

## 1. Director / Country Director / Managing Director

### What usually hurts

- It is hard to tell whether a proposal is actually progressing or just generating more text.
- Risk only becomes visible late, when deadlines are already close.
- Leadership often gets pulled into document review too early or too late.

### What GrantFlow changes

GrantFlow gives leadership a control view, not just draft output.

The useful part for this role is:
- stage status
- open findings
- review queues
- HITL checkpoints
- export readiness

The director does not need to read every draft from scratch. They can step in at controlled decision points and answer:
- where are we now
- what is already reviewable
- what is still blocked
- whether the team should continue, pause, or redirect

### What this sounds like in a pilot

- "I can see whether this draft is moving toward submission or just circulating."
- "I can join at approval points instead of reviewing the whole package manually."

## 2. Proposal Manager / Bid Manager

### What usually hurts

- Work gets scattered across documents, email threads, calls, and chat.
- Versions drift.
- Review comments arrive in inconsistent formats.
- The team loses time coordinating rather than improving the package.

### What GrantFlow changes

This is one of the strongest current roles for GrantFlow.

The system turns proposal preparation into a managed route:
- capture concept
- generate structured draft
- inspect quality and findings
- triage comments
- export a working package

Instead of asking for "the latest version," the proposal manager can work from:
- current stage
- open findings
- open comments
- pending approvals
- export-ready artifacts

### What this sounds like in a pilot

- "This is closer to a proposal workflow board than a writing assistant."
- "The value is that I can manage the process, not chase files."

## 3. Program Manager / Technical Lead

### What usually hurts

- There is a strong project idea, but turning it into a coherent donor-shaped structure takes time.
- Teams start from a blank page too often.
- The skeleton of the application is inconsistent across donors and teams.

### What GrantFlow changes

GrantFlow helps turn raw concept input into a structured draft package:
- Theory of Change
- MEL / LogFrame
- donor-shaped sections
- reviewer-ready exports

The value is not that the system "knows the project better than the expert."
The value is that the expert starts from a structured working draft instead of from nothing.

### What this sounds like in a pilot

- "I would still rewrite content, but I would not start from a blank page."
- "The structure gets me to a usable first draft faster."

## 4. MEL Specialist / LogFrame Specialist

### What usually hurts

- Narrative may exist, but indicators, LogFrame, and monitoring logic arrive late or inconsistently.
- MEL often becomes a downstream clean-up exercise instead of part of the draft process.

### What GrantFlow changes

GrantFlow treats MEL as a distinct stage in the pipeline, not as an afterthought.

Current value for this role is:
- structured indicator rows
- donor-shaped formula/baseline/target defaults
- owner and means-of-verification fields
- exportable LogFrame artifacts

It does not remove MEL review.
It reduces setup work and gives the specialist a stronger base to refine.

### What this sounds like in a pilot

- "This gives me something reviewable much earlier."
- "I still need to improve indicators, but I am not building the whole monitoring frame from scratch."

## 5. Reviewer / Practice Lead / External Consultant

### What usually hurts

- Feedback gets fragmented across Word comments, email, verbal guidance, and messaging apps.
- Severity is unclear.
- It is hard to tell what is fixed, still open, or stale.

### What GrantFlow changes

GrantFlow moves review from ad hoc commentary toward structured review work.

The useful layer for this role is:
- critic findings
- section and severity
- status and triage
- comment workflow
- queue summaries
- suggested next actions

This is especially useful when several reviewers touch the same package.

### What this sounds like in a pilot

- "I can see what is open, what is urgent, and what should be addressed first."
- "This is more reviewable than passing around one long document."

## 6. Submission / Operations Coordinator

### What usually hurts

- The content may be mostly ready, but final packaging is still manual.
- Final-night assembly is risky.
- Teams can still submit the wrong combination of files.

### What GrantFlow changes

GrantFlow produces working downstream artifacts:
- `.docx`
- `.xlsx`
- ZIP bundle

The practical value is not aesthetic polish.
It is reducing last-mile packaging confusion.

### What this sounds like in a pilot

- "I can take the exported package and continue final submission prep."
- "There is less manual stitching together of last-minute files."

## Simple Working-Day View

1. The team submits a concept and donor context.
2. GrantFlow builds a structured draft path.
3. MEL / LogFrame is generated as part of the workflow.
4. Critic and review layers surface findings and comments.
5. Approvers intervene at controlled checkpoints if needed.
6. The package is exported into working submission artifacts.

This is the core operating model already supported by the repository:
- controlled draft pipeline
- structured review
- HITL pause/approve/resume
- export-ready outputs

## One-Line Summary By Role

- For leadership: process control.
- For the proposal manager: workflow coordination.
- For the program lead: faster structured first draft.
- For the MEL specialist: a usable monitoring base.
- For the reviewer: order in findings and comments.
- For operations: cleaner final packaging.
