Building a grant budget that survives arithmetic scrutiny

Grant offices rarely reject a proposal because the prose lacked polish. They return packs when the budget table cannot add up under a highlighter.

Start with unit costs that a reviewer can verify. “Training materials — NT$80,000” without quantity or unit rate forces the reader to invent a story. “40 participant kits × NT$2,000” lets them agree or disagree with a number, which is healthier than forced imagination.

Co-funding rows deserve the same precision. If your organisation contributes staff time, show hours and loaded rates rather than a round lump that happens to fill the required percentage. Round lumps look like reverse-engineered compliance.

Watch VAT treatment. Mixing tax-inclusive and tax-exclusive lines in one column is a classic reason an awarding clerk’s spreadsheet diverges from yours. State the convention once at the top of the schedule and stick to it.

When Continuum Application Audit performs a financial audit of applications for subsidy rounds, we also check that narrative milestones and budget months tell the same calendar. A kickoff described as “month one” while the largest spend sits in month zero raises a quiet flag.

Arithmetic will not win the award alone. Inconsistent arithmetic, however, can lose it before the panel hears your case.