Disagreement Is a Question to Diagnose
Two reviewers can read an application carefully and reach different judgments. They may disagree about a fact, lack a needed specialty, value a tradeoff differently or tolerate a risk differently. Each needs a different response. Averaging scores without understanding the difference can leave the important issue untouched.
This original fictional panel uses a published criterion: the proposed approach is feasible with the stated resources and access. Its review process permits a consistent clarification through the secretariat and a recorded panel recommendation. The process does not allow new criteria or private lobbying by applicants.
A Fictional Discussion in Four Parts
Factual mistake. Reviewer One says: The budget provides only one fieldworker, so the two-location plan is impossible. Reviewer Two points to budget annex B2 and the staffing paragraph, which provide two part-time fieldworkers on different days. The chair asks both to reconcile the actual hours and travel assumptions. Correct the mistaken headcount before deciding whether the plan is feasible; two people still do not automatically supply enough time.
Missing expertise. Reviewer Two says: The proposed specialist procedure seems safe to me. Another reviewer notes that no panel member has relevant specialist competence. The chair records the question and uses the scheme's permitted qualified-review route. General confidence is not technical clearance. The panel should not invent a clinical, engineering or safeguarding conclusion to meet its meeting deadline.
Value judgment. Reviewer Three prefers a plan reaching more people; Reviewer One prefers deeper support to fewer. The chair returns to what the published criterion and call actually value. If both approaches fit, compare their reasoning and resource credibility. Do not privately add a highest-reach rule or reward a proposal for an objective the call never announced.
Different risk tolerance. One reviewer treats an unconfirmed venue as manageable; another thinks it could stop the project. They identify the dependency: permission is pending, an alternative location is described but not evidenced, and the activity date is fixed. Ask what the permissible clarification could establish and whether any required approval condition applies. Neither optimism nor a risk label substitutes for those facts.
Record What the Discussion Changed
| Issue | Action | What the Record Should Preserve |
|---|---|---|
| Staffing fact | Check annex and actual available hours | Corrected fact, source locator and any remaining schedule concern |
| Specialist competence | Obtain allowed qualified advice | Exact question, review scope and unresolved limit |
| Reach versus depth | Apply the published purpose consistently | Reasons for each defensible judgment; no hidden criterion |
| Venue dependency | Seek permitted clarification or record uncertainty | Evidence supplied, condition/decision authority and effect on judgment |
If ratings change, tie the revision to evidence or reasoning. If reasonable disagreement remains, record it according to the actual method. Consensus need not mean every reviewer silently accepts the chair's view.
Protect the Process While Resolving the Substance
Check conflicts before discussion and when new relationships emerge. An unconflicted authorized role applies the organization's policy; disclosure alone does not finish management of a conflict. Keep applications and deliberations within permitted access and confidentiality rules. Provide equivalent clarification opportunities under the actual process, not informal extra coaching for a favored applicant.
At the end, distinguish the panel's recommendation, any unresolved technical or eligibility question, and the actual award decision. Use scores and their limits and the criterion exercise to prepare reviewers before a live round.
Start with the existing conflict checklist to identify the applicable policy, disclosure and decision owner. This conversation guide extends it by separating the causes of substantive reviewer disagreement.
Sources and Scope
Application Review Process, created January 21, 2020, separates review functions in a US agency context. Managing Conflicts concerns Australian charities. The conversation and procedure here are fictional; actual rules and qualified authority govern.