Distinguish Authorization from Acknowledgment

The Practical Check

Objective: label receipt, personal view, processing intent and authorized approval from supplied evidence. A helpful contact can acknowledge a request without having power to approve it. Read the actual delegation and the decision, rather than inferring authority from a title or friendly wording. An unchanged budget total also proves no permission.

Your Starting Facts

Fictional Project Liaison message: "Received your note about moving USD 3,000 from travel to equipment. Looks fine to me. We will process it." Supplied authority: only the Grants Director may approve budget changes; the Liaison handles daily communication. Before: travel 8,000, equipment 4,000, other 20,000 USD. Label "Received", "Looks fine" and "We will process it".

Worked Example

Received = acknowledgment. Looks fine = personal view, not the Director's approval. We will process it = intent to handle the request, not evidence of that approval. No authorized approval is supplied. Proposed arithmetic: travel 8,000 - 3,000 = 5,000; equipment 4,000 + 3,000 = 7,000; total 5,000 + 7,000 + 20,000 = 32,000, unchanged. Keep those figures proposed. The grant owner seeks the Director's written decision before spending under this fictional rule; the learner cannot supply it.

Continue With the Resource

Optional Facilitator Note

New fictional rule: only the Board Secretary may approve use of the seal. An administrator writes, "Your request is logged; I will ask the Secretary tomorrow." Label the message and state the unresolved decision.

Work Product: It acknowledges and promises referral, not seal-use approval or refusal. Ask for the Secretary's actual authorized decision; tomorrow is intended referral timing, not an approval date. Source scope: Charity decision guidance (November 2, 2020) and CC 8 (November 27, 2024), England/Wales, address delegation/control. January 3, 2011 Tool 10 is an agreement checklist requiring case-specific review; Tool 8 identifies senior representatives/contact routes, not legal powers. Checked November 1, 2026. Labels and case are OpenAid design, not a universal signature rule.

Debrief and Reasons

1. Which supplied fact supports the answer?

   Separate evidence from inference.

2. What remains unknown or conditional?

   Do not turn a learning answer into authority.

Source and Scope

• Making Decisions at a Charity

  November 2, 2020; 'Involve others at your charity (delegation)': make clear what the person can and cannot decide; trustees remain responsible.

• Internal Financial Controls for Charities

  November 27, 2024; 2.2 accurate financial information;2.6 reviewing controls and authorization compliance;2.7 separating duties;2.8 recorded breakdowns;6.1 expenditure controls

• Outline Partnership Agreement

  January 3, 2011; Important checklist/legal-review warning;1 date of agreement;4 distinct agreement date and implementation period example;7 standard-clause questions;8 authorized signatories;9 annexes

• Know Your Partner: Key Issues

  January 3, 2011; Representatives and structures: key senior personnel and contactability.