Funding Protocol V.1
Private Beta · By invitation only
By invitation only.
Enter your access code to continue.
fundingprotocol.com · Private Beta · 2026
Portfolio Intelligence
Explore Full Chart
Interactive data layer
Private Beta · V.1 · Funder Intelligence Platform

Stop preparing.
Start building.

Funders and partners spend most of their relationship on data preparation — not on the work itself. Funding Protocol removes the burden from both sides so you can get to what actually matters: building together, with shared goals and real clarity.

Open Platform See the process
$150B
deployed annually with
no standard reporting format
73
days average lag from
period end to funder report
62%
of renewal decisions made with
incomplete data GEO Research
3.2×
higher renewal rate when
both sides share metrics
The 6-stage process — click any step
Scroll to begin
How it works
The 6-stage process.
Every funding relationship.

Setup happens once. The cycle continues. Click any stage.

ONE-TIME SETUP ONGOING FUNDING CYCLE RENEWAL → Active Period Funding Protocol LIVE · ALWAYS ON 01 DISCOVERY Intel built before you arrive. 7 sources auto-pulled 990, LinkedIn, Eventbrite, FAC AI prep — both parties Funder + partner, simultaneous $10,600/hire vs $18,400 Cost delta vs LinkedIn sourcing 0 hours manual research 7 sources · 0 effort click to explore → 02 DUE DILIGENCE One format. Every partner. Partnership Matrix All orgs · one format 11-org peer cohort Comparable orgs, benchmarked EQL evidence certification Admin-data verified, EQL 2 62% had incomplete data 1 format · all orgs click to explore → 03 FUNDING AGREEMENT Unique terms. Shared backbone. 20-metric library Pick 3–5 per relationship Both parties sign Timestamped · in-platform Counterfactual auto-included Robin Hood Principle — built in Renewal basis agreed upfront Custom · standardized click to explore → 04 ACTIVE PERIOD Live data. Both sides. Always. Live shared dashboard Both see plan vs actual, real time 73-day lag → eliminated $150B deployed, no std format 47 hires · 94% of plan ROI 2.4× 94% hire click to explore → 05 CHECK-IN You walk in prepared. AI pre-meeting summary Variance explained · 24h before Funding Score: 79 · #1 of 11 No custom deck needed click to explore → 06 RENEWAL Renewal clarity. Not anxiety. Async pre-vote · 2 wks early Partner sees score before decision 3.2× higher renewal rate Committee decides before meeting click to explore → $150B deployed · no std format 73 days avg reporting lag · eliminated 62% decisions on incomplete data 3.2× higher renewal · shared metrics 0 custom formats needed
1
Discovery & Screening
Funder
You're walking in
half blind.

You've heard of them. You know almost nothing.

A potential partner org came up in conversation. You have an intro call in three days. You'll spend an hour on their website, skim a 990 on ProPublica, and walk in hoping your questions land.

⚠ The problem
You're at the mercy of what the partner chooses to share. No standardized intelligence. No peer context. No clear picture of whether this org is even the right fit before anyone's time is spent.
✦ Funding Protocol
Before the meeting exists, Funding Protocol scrapes 990 filings, annual reports, leadership data, event history, news mentions, and web presence. An AI prep sheet — built for your specific priorities — is waiting when you open your laptop.
Partner Org
You're pitching
without a map.

A funder reached out. You have no idea what they want.

You'll spend 48 hours preparing a deck that may miss entirely. You don't know their priorities, their deal size, their portfolio thesis. You're pitching blind.

⚠ The problem
You have 12 active funders and 3 more in conversation. Customizing an intelligent pitch for each one, without knowing what they actually care about, is an impossible ask on a limited budget.
✦ Funding Protocol
Funding Protocol builds your prep sheet too — who is this funder, what do they fund, what's their average deal size, what have their previous partners said publicly. Walk in knowing what they care about before they tell you.
Funding Protocol · Stage 1 Intelligence
Auto-generated · No effort required · Updates continuously
Building now
Pulling from: IRS 990 ProPublica LinkedIn Annual Report PDF Eventbrite News mentions USAspending.gov ✓ Intelligence ready
Partner Profile — ALPFA
ALPFA
Association of Latino Professionals For America · Los Angeles, CA · Est. 1972
Financials IRS 990
Total Revenue
Program Ratio
Overhead
Revenue Growth
Program spend74.7%
Overhead16%
Scale Web + LinkedIn
Members
Chapters
Events / Year
Event Reach
LinkedIn Followers
Leadership LinkedIn + Web
CEO Tenure
Board Size
Staff Count
Staff Growth
Risk Signals FAC + IRS
Audit Findings
Tax Status
Rev. Concentration
Dual EIN
Leadership Network LinkedIn scraped
AI Prep Sheets — Generated Simultaneously
Funder Prep Sheet Your priorities → their data
Google strategic hiring focus mapped against ALPFA's reach and pipeline data.
1
ALPFA's 92K members produce 47 verified hires per $500K — cost per hire of $10,600 vs. LinkedIn's $18,400 average. Leading ROI metric for strategic hiring funders.
2
Dual EIN structure (Inc + Foundation) means financial statements appear incomplete in single-source checks. Combined revenue: $8.8M — not $5.2M as reported on Inc. 990 alone.
3
CEO in role 6 years — stability signal. Board includes 4 members with Fortune 500 CHRO affiliations. Ask: how do they track post-event hire attribution?
Partner Prep Sheet Funder data → your pitch
Google's stated 2026 hiring priorities mapped against what they've funded publicly.
1
Google's average strategic hiring partnership is $400K–$600K annually. Your ask of $500K is squarely in range. Lead with cost-per-hire, not headcount.
2
Google has publicly cited Latino representation in technical roles as a 2026 priority. ALPFA's engineering chapter growth (+28% YoY) is your strongest differentiator — lead with this.
3
Prepare to speak to geographic distribution of your career fair attendees — Google will want to know reach in Austin, Seattle, and NYC specifically.
2
Due Diligence
Funder
Eight reports.
Nothing compares.

Eight different formats. Zero comparability.

You requested standard information from eight potential partners. You received PDFs, Excel files, Google Docs, and narrative essays. None of them answer the same questions. You can't compare any of them.

⚠ The problem
Every hour spent cleaning and reconciling data is an hour not spent evaluating it. Program staff with large portfolios spend the majority of their cycle time on data preparation — not on decision-making.
✦ Funding Protocol
Every partner org's data is normalized into the same structure. Same metrics. Same sources. Same visual language. Hover any cell in the matrix to see the full river chart for that metric — plan vs. actual over 12 months.
Partner Org
Same data.
Twelve custom formats.

12 funders. 12 different templates. 2 staff.

You're reporting the same underlying data to 12 different funders, each of whom has a unique format, timeline, and set of questions. You have two people doing all of development.

⚠ The problem
Customizing reporting for each funder is unsustainable. You either under-report — losing funder confidence — or over-invest in reporting — stealing resources from programs. Neither is acceptable.
✦ Funding Protocol
Connect your sources once — Eventbrite, Google Sheets, Salesforce, your 990 auto-pulls. Funding Protocol standardizes everything and distributes to all funders automatically. Submit once. All funders see it.
Partnership Health Matrix — 8 Relationships × 6 Dimensions
Hover any cell for river chart popout · Click for full analysis · Open drawer for full interactive view
Live data
On track (80+)
Good (70–79)
At risk (60–69)
Below target (<60)
Data sources — connect once, normalize forever
3
Mutual Agreement — The Success Definition
Now both sides
see everything.
Before a dollar moves,
both sides agree on what success means.

In writing. In the same system. With a counterfactual adjustment built in by default. The terms are custom. The protocol is always the same.

Funder commits to
Clear accountability
The funder's specific priorities are encoded in the success definition. Both parties know exactly what will be measured. No surprises at renewal. The committee sees what was agreed — not what the partner chose to report.
Partner commits to
Defined metrics — not open-ended asks
The partner knows exactly what they need to demonstrate. No more guessing what the funder actually wants to see. No more custom reports. Just the agreed metrics, from connected sources, automatically.
✦ Success Definition — Google × ALPFA · FY2026
Funding Protocol Standard
5 agreed metrics · Counterfactual auto-included · Both parties signed digitally on April 6, 2026
Hires Sourced
Workday sync
Event Attendance
Eventbrite sync
Member Network Reach
Google Sheets + LinkedIn
Hiring ROI
Calculated from above
Counterfactual Adjustment
AI model · Auto-included
✓ Google — signed
✓ ALPFA — signed
4
Active Funding Period — Funding Protocol Dashboard
Funder
Stop waiting
for the report.

Real-time data. Not 90 days late.

The Funding Protocol Dashboard updates continuously as partner data sources sync. Both parties see the same plan vs. actual — in real time. Not after the quarter closes.

✦ Funding Protocol
When a metric crosses a threshold, both parties see it simultaneously. AI flags variance and drafts an explanation — before it becomes a crisis at the quarterly meeting. The funder is never caught off guard.
Partner Org
Update once.
All funders see it.

Connected sources. Zero extra effort.

Eventbrite syncs after every event. The 990 auto-pulls when filed. Google Sheets updates as you track internally. You don't do anything differently — the data just flows to all funders at once.

✦ Funding Protocol
Every data point shows its source and timestamp. Your funders see exactly where each number comes from. No black boxes. No narrative spin. Just clean, sourced, comparable data — for all funders simultaneously.
Funding Protocol Dashboard — Google × ALPFA · FY2026
Live data · Both parties see this simultaneously · Hover data points for source lineage
Syncing
Hires Sourced
47
↑ 94% of plan
Workday sync · 1h ago
Event Attendance
8,420
↑ 105% of plan
Eventbrite · 2h ago
Member Reach
92K
→ 92% of plan
Sheets + LinkedIn · Daily
Hiring ROI
2.4×
↑ Exceeding plan
Calculated · Live
Plan vs. Actual — FY2026
Above plan
Below plan
Plan
↑ Hiring ROI +20% vs plan
Convention attendance surge drove unexpected pipeline growth. Consider increasing FY2027 scope.
! Member reach 8% below plan
3 regional events rescheduled. ALPFA's explanation already drafted in the communication thread.
✦ ALPFA ranks #1 of 11 peers
Member leverage 2.8× peer median. Strongest differentiator in the portfolio. Not in current reports.
5
Quarterly Check-In
Funder
You walk in
at their mercy.

Their deck. Their format. Their framing.

You asked for a quarterly update. The partner prepared a deck — their version of what happened, in their format, with the metrics they chose. You'll ask questions and chase follow-up data over email for the next two weeks.

⚠ The problem
Every quarterly meeting is a reset. You never have the same basis for comparison. You can't tell if things are improving because the baseline keeps shifting and the format keeps changing.
✦ Funding Protocol
24 hours before the meeting, Funding Protocol generates a pre-meeting summary — current metric status against agreed targets, variance explanations already drafted, three suggested discussion topics. You walk in knowing where things stand. The meeting starts at strategy.
Partner Org
Twelve meetings.
Twelve custom decks.

36 hours a quarter just on meeting prep.

You have quarterly check-ins with 12 funders. Each wants a slightly different format. You spend 3 hours per deck — 36 hours a quarter — just preparing for meetings that should be conversations.

⚠ The problem
You're performing for funders instead of talking with them. The deck is defensive armor, not a communication tool. The meetings feel like presentations — not partnerships.
✦ Funding Protocol
No deck. Both parties open the same Funding Protocol Dashboard before the meeting. The data is already there. The meeting starts at "what do we do about the member reach gap" — not "let me walk you through our results."
Pre-Meeting Protocol Summary — ALPFA · Funding Score Breakdown
Hover any dimension to see peer comparison → bubble chart popout · Open drawer for full cohort view
ALPFA (84)
Peer median (72)
Pre-meeting insights — auto-generated
Outcome Performance (88) — 12pts above peer median. Volunteer leverage ratio 2.8× group. This is your strongest renewal argument.
Narrative Usability (76) — Weakest dimension. Reporting latency 18 days vs 9-day peer median. Suggested topic for today's meeting.
Counterfactual — AI estimates 62% of hires are net-additive. Net value created this year: ~$522K. This should be in the renewal conversation.
Peer cohort position
6
Funding Review Room — Renewal
Funder
Committee decides
before the meeting.

Routine renewals resolved. Live meeting is strategy.

The Funding Review Room lets your committee pre-vote on renewals two weeks before the live meeting. Renew, conditions, more info, decline — async. Routine renewals are resolved before anyone sits down.

✦ Funding Protocol
"Seven renewals are pre-approved. Two have conditions. One needs the room. We have 40 minutes." That's the opening. The rest is pure strategy — not reading PDFs at each other.
Partner Org
Renewal clarity.
Not renewal anxiety.

You see your Funding Score before they decide.

For the first time, you have visibility into where you stand before the decision is made. The Funding Score, peer benchmarks, AI recommendation — all visible. No surprises. No verdicts.

✦ Funding Protocol
The renewal conversation becomes a negotiation between equals — not a verdict read from a podium. You know what you'd need to improve. The funder knows what they're renewing. Both sides are building toward the same goal.
Funding Review Room — Google × ALPFA · FY2026 Renewal
Committee pre-votes async · Hover renewal number for full Partnership Matrix · Open drawer for Sankey + Heatmap
Committee Pre-Vote — 3 of 5 responded
Renew (2)
With conditions (1)
Need info (0)
Pending (2)
Renew
Full renewal at current or increased scope
With Conditions
Renewal contingent on metric improvements
?
Need More Info
Request additional data before deciding
Decline
Do not renew at this time
AI Renewal Recommendation
Funding Score 84
Peer rank #1 of 11
Net-additive value ~$522K
Counterfactual adj. 62% additive
Recommendation: Renew + Increase
$0
FY2027 · +10% · Member reach target → 110K · Hover for full relationship history
Full relationship history · 6 dimensions
This is what funding
clarity looks like.
Start with a $35K portfolio benchmarking engagement. Five partner orgs. Six weeks. A board-ready cohort report your team can actually use to make renewal decisions.
Open Platform → Request a Demo