// 12_governance
How decisions get made.
Every application runs the same gauntlet, every cycle. No hidden criteria, no discretionary bar. Here's the rubric three independent reviewers use, the rules that bind them, and where each one is enforced in code instead of on trust.
// 12a_the_rubric
The rubric: 100 points.
There's no passing score. Funding is a monthly cap (40 applications a cycle), not a threshold — a high score competes for a limited pool.
| Section | Criterion | Points | What we're scoring |
|---|---|---|---|
| Craft0–40 | Voice / originality | 15 | Does the work sound or look like someone, not something? A rough demo with a real point of view outscores a slick one with none. |
| Execution quality | 15 | Is the work-sample actually finished to the level the artist claims? We judge the thing, not the description of the thing. | |
| Trajectory | 10 | Is the body of work improving release over release? One good song can be luck; three that keep getting better is a trend. | |
| Feasibility & budget realism0–30 | Budget matches real market rates | 15 | We check line items against what studios, venues, engineers, and plants actually charge. Padding gets flagged; unrealistically cheap gets flagged too. |
| Timeline plausible | 10 | Can this deliverable ship in the window proposed, weighed against typical production timelines for the medium? | |
| Vendor named or findable | 5 | A named, verifiable studio, engineer, or venue scores full marks. “TBD” isn't disqualifying, but a placeholder scores lower. | |
| Marginal impact0–30 | Would this happen anyway? | 20 | The counterfactual. We look for the gap our money actually closes — the mix that doesn't happen, the pressing run that doesn't get ordered. |
| Does the check size match the gap? | 10 | A $2,500 ask against a $400 gap scores low even on a great project. The grant should be sized to the hole, not the wish list. | |
| Total | 100 | Craft 40 · Feasibility 30 · Impact 30 | |
// 12b_the_rules
The rules that bind reviewers.
These aren't guidelines. They're how every cycle runs, without exception.
Three reviewers, independent, before any discussion
Every application is scored by three reviewers who fill out the rubric on their own, before seeing each other's scores or notes. No anchoring, no groupthink.
Disclosed relationship → recusal
Know the applicant — collaborator, friend, family, business relationship, anything that could bias the read? You disclose it and you recuse. Every recusal is logged with a reason and published in that cycle's report. No exceptions.
Majority decides
Three independent scores get compared. Where they agree, that's the call. A 2–1 split on fund-or-not follows the majority.
Every decline gets two real sentences
Not a form letter. Two sentences that name the actual reason — which part of the rubric it fell short on and why — written by a reviewer who read the application. Reapply next cycle.
First-degree-connection grants capped at 50% of any cycle
An application with a first-degree connection to a reviewer, founder, or mentor can still be funded on merit — but first-degree grants can never make up more than half the dollars awarded in a single cycle. A hard cap, checked before decisions finalize.
Ties go to discussion, then a neutral third
If the three scores genuinely split on whether to fund, the reviewers discuss, citing the rubric. If they still can't agree, a founder-neutral third reviewer — no vote yet, no connection to the applicant — reads the file fresh and decides.
Waitlist by score order at the cap
Intake is capped at 40 applications a cycle. When funding runs out before the qualified pool does, remaining qualified applicants are waitlisted in score order and carried to the next decision round — no reapplying from scratch.
Decisions within 30 days
The 30-day clock starts when the cycle's window opens. Every application's due date is stamped at intake; overdue ones surface to the reviewers, and turnaround is reported per cycle.
// 12c_enforced_in_code
We enforce this in code, not just policy.
A rubric you can read is a start. A rule you can't route around is the point. Three of these mechanisms are wired into the admin system and reported publicly per cycle:
- The three-review gate. A decision — accept or decline — is refused until three completed, non-recused reviews exist. The only way past it is an explicit founder override, which requires a written reason and is logged. Reviewers can't decide at all.
- The connection cap. Each application's connection degree is a structured flag. Before a first-degree grant is finalized, the system computes what share of the cycle's dollars would go to first-degree connections. Past 50%, it blocks — a logged founder override is the only exception.
- The 30-day SLA.The decision clock is stamped on every application at intake. Overdue applications surface to reviewers, and each cycle's turnaround is part of its public report.
Every override leaves a record. Every recusal is counted. The numbers below aren't a summary we write — they're read straight from the same tables the decisions run through.
// 12d_the_reports
The per-cycle report.
Each cycle publishes an accountability report after decisions go out on the 15th: how many applied, funded, declined, and waitlisted; how many recusals; the first-degree share against the cap; and any overrides. Aggregate only — no names, no per-application detail.
2026-11
Current cycle. The report publishes after decisions go out on the 15th.
Past cycles appear here as they close.
// 12e_for_counsel
The rest of the paper trail.
The terms an artist actually signs, the privacy policy, the contribution terms, and the open questions for counsel all live as dated pages.