BlogPricingFAQ
Download materialsTry the demoWatch the demo videoBook a free demoLog in

Phone: 03-6629-3846 (weekdays 10:00-18:00)

Use caseCorporate planningSubsidy applicationsApplication guidelines

Using AI to check whether subsidy application documents meet guidelines before submission

A near-final subsidy application package was checked against guidelines, eligibility requirements, scoring items, and required attachments. AI found missed requirements and missing attachments with evidence, preventing returns for formal defects.

ININDX Editorial TeamProduct Team||7 min read
Planning department desk with subsidy application documents, envelopes, and attachments

"The application is complete, but did we miss something in the public guidelines?" That concern is familiar to anyone responsible for grant applications. We tested how INDX Compliance handles it using real product screens.

Background

Why checking against public grant guidelines is so hard

A grant application owner in a corporate planning department was reviewing a complete grant application package just before submission. The public guidelines ran dozens of pages, covering eligibility criteria, scoring items, and required attachments. Checking every item against the application requires experience and focus, and there is little room for error.

If the team discovers after rejection that the applicant never met the criteria, it is too late. A formal defect can also trigger a return that puts the deadline at risk. compare the application documents against the public guidelines used as the standardThis workflow needed a dependable way to do that.

Challenges encountered

  • Teams manually compared dozens of guideline pages against each application item, sometimes working overnight before submission.
  • Missed eligibility or scoring requirements created rejection risk, and many misses surfaced only after submission.
  • Missing attachments could cause formal defects and last-minute returns right before the deadline.
  • Teams could not later explain which guideline section supported a decision, so lessons did not carry into the next application.
01Trial

Describe the check in plain business language

First, there is no complex setup."Check whether the application package satisfies the public guideline requirements, with supporting evidence."in the same language a team member would use with a manager. The AI then built the required review steps automatically.

app.indx-compliance.com/start/draft

Your instruction (plain language is fine)

"Check whether the complete grant application package is ready for submission and satisfies the eligibility criteria, scoring items, and required attachments in the public guidelines. Flag missed requirements or missing attachments with evidence."

AI generated the checklist workflowdraft · 4 steps

  1. 01Import the grant guidelines and application forms

    Import the public application guidelines, eligibility criteria, scoring items, and required attachment list.

  2. 02Assess each application document against the requirements

    Check eligibility criteria, eligible expense scope, and required attachments item by item.

  3. 03Verify evidence and confidence

    Confirm that the cited section of the public application guidelines actually exists.

  4. 04Final human review

    Route only needs-review and non-compliant items to the application owner.

Screen 1From a plain-language instruction, AI generates a 4-step workflow: import the public guidelines -> assess requirements for each application document -> verify evidence -> final human review. Review the contents and save.

No programming knowledge or complex rule configuration is required. The generated workflow can be reviewed and edited, then reused with the same checks for the next application.

02Trial

Run it to see pass/fail results with evidence for each item

After saving and running the workflow, AI checks whether the application satisfies each guideline requirement. The results are consolidated on one screen. The key point isEvery decision includes the exact guideline section used as evidence, so reviewers do not have to take the AI conclusion on trust. Tapping a row opens the source text.

app.indx-compliance.com/runs/run_joseikin-v3
Grant application checkApplication packagev3

Compared against public guidelines / eligibility criteria / scoring items / required attachments

Grant Application Guideline Compliance Check

Run on 2026-05-14 | 8 checks

Evidence included

4

Pass

3

Needs review

1

Non-compliant

Pass 50%
  • Decision evidencePublic guidelines 3.1 (Eligible applicants) p.4

    Eligible applicants for this program are limited to small and medium-sized enterprises with capital of JPY 300 million or less, or 300 employees or fewer. Eligibility is assessed across the entire corporate group.

    Checked standard
    Public guidelines 3.1 (Eligible applicants)
    Source match
    Possible conflict with public guidelines
    AI confidence
    85%

    The capital stated in the application exceeds the limit, so the applicant may not meet the eligible business criteria.

Screen 2A list of 4 pass / 3 needs review / 1 non-compliant items. Click any row to open the highlighted source text from the public guidelines and the reason for the non-compliant or needs-review result.

In this test, AI found that the applicant capital exceeded the eligible-business cap, meaning the applicant might not meet the threshold requirement at all as one non-compliant item. Public guideline 3.1 set the limit at JPY 300 million, but the application exceeded it. If discovered after submission, this entrance requirement miss would be serious.

03Trial

Humans review only the needs-review and non-compliant items

The 4 items AI marked as passing have evidence attached and can be checked quickly. Human judgment is reserved forthe 3 needs-review items and 1 non-compliant item, 4 items in total. The owner returned the non-compliant item to the drafting team, reran the corrected application, and finally approved and locked the results.

app.indx-compliance.com/runs/run_joseikin-v3/review

Final review (human confirmed)

Non-compliantApplicant must meet the eligible business criteria

Public guideline 3.1 requires capital of JPY 300 million or less. The application exceeds the limit, so it was returned to the drafting team for confirmation and correction.

Humans review only the 4 needs-review and non-compliant items.The 4 passing items can move through with evidence attached, so reviewers can focus on judgment.

Audit log (tamper-proof)

  1. 10:14AI

    Assessed 8 checks (4 pass / 3 needs review / 1 non-compliant)

    hash c2d7…4a

  2. 10:31Grant application owner Yamada

    Returned the eligible-applicant requirement and requested capital confirmation

    hash e9f1…7b

  3. 11:45Corporate planning Suzuki

    Corrected the capital amount, replaced the application, and reran the check -> pass

    hash a4b8…2c

  4. 11:46Grant application owner Yamada

    Approved and finalized all items. Final submission documents confirmed

    hash f3c0…d5

Screen 3Left: humans review only items that need action. Right: every action, from AI decision to human approval or return, is automatically preserved in a tamper-proof log.

Every action and decision is recorded in a tamper-proof audit log. Teams can later trace who decided what, when, and based on which evidence, and reuse that record for grant performance reports or investigation responses.

Outcome

Result: zero formal returns, with missed requirements caught before submission

The guideline comparison that used to become an overnight pre-submission task wassubstantially shortened from check preparation through final confirmation. More importantly, the team caught an eligibility miss before submission, which manual review often overlooks.

0 returns
Formal-defect returns

Requirements covered before submission

100%
Decisions with evidence

Relevant guideline section available immediately

4 / 8
Items requiring human review

4 passing items move through

Key points from this case

  • Configure the check with a plain-language instruction. No specialist knowledge or programming is required.
  • Every pass/fail decision includes the original public guideline text as evidence, so people can verify the AI work.
  • Humans review only needs-review and non-compliant items. focus on judgment and catch threshold requirement misses.
  • Actions and decisions remain in a tamper-proof log that can be used directly for performance reporting and investigation responses.
Summary

Policies, contracts, applications: rule checks follow the same pattern

This example focused on grant applications, but INDX Compliance works the same way across use cases. Provide the standard documents, such as public guidelines, laws, or internal rules, along with the documents to check, and compare them with evidence attached. The same workflow applies to internal policy reviews, contract defect checks, ISO audit preparation, and any operation that requires checking documents against rules.

Try it in your workflow,starting with one document.

Bring a policy, contract, or application document, and we will demo the actual judgment screen. Closed-network and on-premise deployments are supported.

Download materials for freeBook a free demo

More use cases

View all
Use case
Internal policiesCompliance teamISO / PrivacyMark

Using AI to check whether a new internal policy conflicts with higher-level policies or laws

We compared a newly revised information security management policy against higher-level basic policies, work rules, and APPI requirements, then had AI identify conflicting clauses with evidence.

Policy review: 2 weeks to half a day, with zero missed issues
|8 minRead
Use case
IP departmentPatent applicationsDescription requirements

Using AI to check whether a pre-filing patent specification meets Patent Act description requirements and internal guidelines

We compared a near-final specification against Patent Act Article 36, JPO formatting, and internal filing guidelines, then had AI identify support and clarity issues in the claims with evidence.

Pre-filing check: 3 days to 1 hour, preventing returns for description defects
|8 minRead
Use case
ManufacturingQuality assuranceISO 9001

Using AI to pre-check an ISO 9001 internal audit and catch gaps in quality manuals and procedures

Before the internal audit, AI performed a first-pass check on whether the quality manual and department procedures met ISO 9001:2015 clauses 4-10, detecting missing corrective-action and audit provisions with evidence.

Audit preparation: 1 week to 2 hours, making missing requirements visible in advance
|8 minRead

Download the 3-piece product materials set for free

Free download