Grant peer review comments

Identifies grant peer-review comments and assessment records containing substantive reviewer observations, scores, or funding outcomes. Grant-review and application phrases are retained for discovery at 65; populated assessment fields raise confidence to 75, while formal proposal or reviewer references plus an explicit funding outcome raise confidence to 85.

Type

regex

Engine

boost_regex

Confidence

medium

Confidence justification

Medium confidence is appropriate because grant-review language is not unique to a live assessment. Enforcement requires populated assessment structure, and high confidence adds both a formal record reference and an explicit funding outcome.

Detection quality

Topic false positive

Jurisdictions

global

Regulations

GDPR

Data categories

pii

Scope

wide

Risk rating

8

Platform compatibility

Purview: Compatible, GCP DLP: Compatible, Macie: Compatible, Zscaler: Compatible, Palo Alto: Degraded, Netskope: Unsupported

Pattern

(?is)\b(?:grant\s+peer\s+review|peer\s+review\s+comments?|reviewer\s+feedback|funding\s+decision|review\s+panel|reviewer\s+score|funding\s+recommendation|grant\s+committee|grant\s+application)\b

Corroborative evidence keywords

criterion score, panel rank, strengths, weaknesses, reviewer comments, moderation note, conflict declaration, funding recommendation, panel decision

Proximity: 300 characters

Should match

• The grants office noted that grant peer review comments are pending. — Low-tier probe - grant-review topic without populated assessment content
• Grant peer review comments. Criterion 1 score: 3/5. Weakness: feasibility. — Medium-tier probe - populated assessment fields without a formal reference or funding outcome
• Grant application review. Overall score: 82. Strengths: sound method. Weaknesses: limited sample. — Medium-tier probe - application topic with substantive reviewer output
• Proposal ID: GR-884; Reviewer ID: R2; criterion 1 score: 3/5; weakness: feasibility; panel rank: 14; funding recommendation: do not fund. — High-tier probe - populated assessment, formal references, and explicit funding outcome

Should not match

• unrelated generic text without domain phrases — No relevant topic phrases present
• placeholder value 12345 — Random text should not match topic-specific regex
• Journal peer review comments. Reviewer comments: revise the literature review. Overall score: 3/5. — Journal-review collision must not enforce as grant assessment content
• Pull request code review: reviewer feedback. Weakness: missing null check. Overall score: 4/5. — Software-review collision must not enforce
• Investment committee funding decision. Criterion score: 8/10. Recommendation: proceed with the venture capital round. — Commercial investment decision must not enforce as a grant decision
• Loan application funding decision. Overall score: 720. Decision status: approved. — Lending decision must not enforce as grant peer review
• Public guidance explains grant peer review comments, criterion score: 3/5, Proposal ID: GR-884, and funding recommendation: do not fund. — Guidance containing realistic assessment vocabulary must not enforce
• Training example: Proposal ID: GR-884; grant peer review comments; criterion score: 3/5; funding recommendation: do not fund. — Structurally complete training content must not enforce

Known false positives

• Grant-program guidance, application instructions, and training examples can reproduce review labels and sample scores without containing a live assessment. Mitigation: Keep topic phrases discovery-only, require populated assessment fields for enforcement, and reject explicit guidance, template, and training framing.
• Journal peer review, source-code review, employee appraisal, lending, and investment decisions use reviewer, score, weakness, recommendation, and funding language. Mitigation: Apply domain-collision exclusions to enforcing tiers and require a grant-review topic together with assessment structure.

References

• https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2023
• https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018