Furrow Sense Innovation Grant Application

Grant pitch deck for an innovation fund: milestones and match

A grant pitch deck has to prove the project scores against the fund criteria, that each payment is tied to a milestone, and that the applicant can match the money. Furrow Sense, an invented soil probe maker in Griffith, applies for 480,000 dollars matched dollar for dollar to add a salinity sensor.

Create a presentation with OneCraft10 slides, read in order

Every slide, in order

The whole deck as it renders, one slide after another. Read it the way the audience would.

FURROW SENSE

ROUND 4 APPLICATION

A probe that reads salt before yield falls

Agricultural Innovation Fund, 480,000 dollars matched one to one

Tess Warrigal, managing director

Griffith, New South Wales

Slide 1 · cover · Name the project, the program and the amount, the three things an assessor files the deck under.

The problem

Salt builds up in irrigated soil quietly. By the time a grower sees it in the crop, a season of yield is gone. Moisture probes cannot see it, and lab tests come back weeks late.

Invisible until late

Salinity damage shows in the plant only after roots are already stressed for weeks.

Tested once a year

Most growers send soil to a lab once a season. The result arrives after the decision.

Water wasted on it

Growers flush salt with extra irrigation by guesswork, using water the state is trying to save.

02

Slide 2 · intro · The problem in the state terms the program cares about: lost yield on irrigated land and the water spent on it.

THE PROJECT

18 months

Add a salinity sensor to the probe already on 412 farms, prove it in the field for one irrigation season, and release it to customers.

1
Build the sensor

An electrical conductivity sensor at 30 and 60 centimetres, calibrated against lab samples.

2
Trial on eight farms

40 probes in the Riverina for one full season, with a university partner checking accuracy.

3
Release and report

Firmware to every customer probe that has the new head, and a public trial report.

03

Slide 3 · pillars · The project in three numbered parts, so the assessor sees scope before money.

Against the three criteria

The fund guidelines weight each criterion equally. Each panel answers one, with the evidence named.

Innovation and need

Our probes read moisture only. Growers on 412 farms asked for salinity in the same unit in our 2026 survey, and 58 percent said they would pay for it. A weekly reading replaces a yearly lab test.

Benefit to the state

Earlier flushing decisions on irrigated land in the Riverina and Murray. The trial targets 15 percent less yield lost to salt and 8 percent less flushing water, with six regional jobs in Griffith.

Capability

Six seasons selling probes on 38,000 hectares, an engineering team of five, and a signed research agreement with a university soils group for independent checking.

04

Slide 4 · framework · The project mapped to the three assessment criteria, in the order the program lists them, which is how an assessor scores it.

Four milestones, four payments

Each milestone releases a quarter of the grant, 120,000 dollars, on an approved report.

Oct 2027

Prototype validated

Ten sensor heads pass lab calibration within 5 percent of reference samples.

Mar 2028

Trial installed

40 probes running on eight Riverina farms before the first irrigation of the season.

Sep 2028

Season of data

A full season of readings with the university accuracy report attached.

Mar 2029

Release and acquittal

Sensor on sale to all customers. Final report and financial acquittal lodged.

05

Slide 5 · timeline · Four funded milestones with dates, each one a payment trigger under the grant agreement.

Budget and match

Thousands of dollars. The grant is matched dollar for dollar from Furrow Sense revenue, not from other public money.

Category
Grant
Furrow Sense
Total
Engineering staff
210
170
380
Field trials
120
80
200
Prototype hardware
90
110
200
University research partner
40
40
80
Project management and reporting
20
80
100
Total
480
480
960
Total project cost 960,000 dollars. In kind contributions are excluded from the match.

06

Slide 6 · pricing · The budget by category with the grant and the matched contribution in separate columns, as the guidelines require.

What success looks like

Top row by the end of the trial season, September 2028. Bottom row two years after release, March 2031.

95%

Readings within 5% of lab

Across all trial farms, checked by the university partner.

-15%

Yield lost to salt

On trial paddocks against matched control paddocks.

-8%

Flushing water

Megalitres per hectare used to flush salt on trial farms.

2,000

Salinity probes sold

Across New South Wales and Victoria, from zero today.

6

Regional jobs

Full time equivalent in Griffith for assembly and support.

20,000

Hectares read weekly

Of 38,000 monitored today, instead of once a season.

07

Slide 7 · metrics · The outcome targets the grant will be judged against, three for the trial and three for two years after release.

Risks and how they are handled

A wet season

Little irrigation means little salt movement. The trial runs on eight farms across two soil types to spread the risk.

Sensor drift

Conductivity sensors drift in clay soils. Lab samples every six weeks recalibrate each head during the trial.

Losing a key engineer

Two engineers work on the sensor from the start, so no milestone depends on one person.

The match

The 480,000 dollar contribution is held in a separate account from the start of the project.

08

Slide 8 · checklist · The main delivery risks with the mitigation for each, since assessors score risk management under capability.

Who delivers it

The same team that put probes on 412 farms, with one research partner for independent checking.

Lead

Tess Warrigal, managing director. Agronomist for eleven years before founding Furrow Sense. Accountable officer under the grant agreement.

Build

Ravi Menon, head of engineering, with four engineers. Designed the current probe, now on 38,000 hectares, and its field firmware.

Check

A university soils group under a signed research agreement. Runs the lab samples and writes the independent accuracy report.

09

Slide 9 · pillars · Who delivers it, as three roles with their record, which answers the capability criterion with names.

REPORTING

Quarterly updates, four milestones, one public report.

Quarterly progress reports to the program manager. A milestone report with evidence before each payment. A final report and audited acquittal by March 2029, and the trial results published for growers.

Tess Warrigal · grants@furrowsense.example

10

Slide 10 · closing · Close on reporting, because an assessor wants to know how the program will see its money working.

The structure

What each slide is doing, so you can reuse the order even with different content.

Slide 1cover
Name the project, the program and the amount, the three things an assessor files the deck under.
Slide 2intro
The problem in the state terms the program cares about: lost yield on irrigated land and the water spent on it.
Slide 3pillars
The project in three numbered parts, so the assessor sees scope before money.
Slide 4framework
The project mapped to the three assessment criteria, in the order the program lists them, which is how an assessor scores it.
Slide 5timeline
Four funded milestones with dates, each one a payment trigger under the grant agreement.
Slide 6pricing
The budget by category with the grant and the matched contribution in separate columns, as the guidelines require.
Slide 7metrics
The outcome targets the grant will be judged against, three for the trial and three for two years after release.
Slide 8checklist
The main delivery risks with the mitigation for each, since assessors score risk management under capability.
Slide 9pillars
Who delivers it, as three roles with their record, which answers the capability criterion with names.
Slide 10closing
Close on reporting, because an assessor wants to know how the program will see its money working.

Slide by slide

Slide one names the project, the fund and the amount. Slide two states the salinity problem in terms of lost yield and wasted water. Slide three is the eighteen month project in three parts. Slide four maps it to the three criteria. Slide five is the four funded milestones. Slide six is the budget and the match. Slide seven is six outcome targets, three for the trial and three for two years after. Slide eight is four delivery risks with how each is handled. Slide nine is the delivery team. Slide ten is how progress will be reported to the program.

How to adapt this deck

A research commercialisation grant with a university partner should add a slide on who owns the results and how they will be licensed, since assessors check that before scoring commercial benefit. A grant without a match requirement can replace the matched column with in kind contributions, labelled as such. A federal program will weight national benefit and export potential, so slide four should be rewritten against its criteria rather than reused; the order and wording of criteria change between funds.

What grant assessors ask for

Business.gov.au lists Australian grants and programs with their guidelines, and nearly every guideline asks for the same four things: how the project meets each merit criterion, a budget with eligible and ineligible costs separated, milestones that payments attach to, and evidence the applicant can deliver. The federal Industry Growth Program is a typical example of that structure. An assessor reads many applications against one scoring sheet, so a deck that follows the sheet is easier to score well than one that tells the story its own way.

What makes this deck work

The criteria are answered in their own order

Slide four maps the project to innovation and need, benefit to the state and capability, in the order the guidelines list them, with the evidence named in each panel. An assessor scoring against a sheet finds every answer where they expect it.

Each milestone is a payment

Slide five dates four milestones from October 2027 to March 2029 and says each releases a quarter of the grant, 120,000 dollars, on an approved report. Four times 120,000 is the 480,000 dollars on the cover.

The match is a column, not a promise

Slide six splits the 960,000 dollar budget into five categories with grant and matched contribution side by side, 480,000 each. The checklist on slide eight adds that the match is held in a separate account from the start.

Questions people ask

Is a pitch deck part of a grant application?

Some programs ask for a presentation at interview, others accept slides as supporting material, and many want only the written form. A deck still helps, because it forces the milestones, budget and criteria into a shape an assessor can read in minutes. Check the guidelines for what is accepted.

How do I show matched funding in a grant deck?

As a budget table with the grant and your contribution in separate columns by category, and a total for each. Say where the match comes from and exclude in kind contributions if the program does. This example matches 480,000 dollars from revenue and holds it in a separate account.

How many milestones should a grant project have?

Usually three to five, each with a date, a measurable deliverable and a payment. Four suits an eighteen month project like this one. Avoid milestones that only say work continues; the assessor needs to see what evidence each report will contain and when it arrives.

What outcome targets do grant assessors look for?

Measurable ones tied to the program aims, with a date and a method. This deck sets accuracy, yield loss and water targets for the trial, then sales, jobs and hectares two years after release. Every target says how it will be checked.

Should a grant deck include risks?

Yes. Assessors usually score delivery risk under capability, and an application that names its risks with a mitigation for each looks more capable than one that names none. Four risks is enough: technical, seasonal, people and money, each with the step already taken.

Can I reuse the same deck for a different grant?

Reuse the project, budget and team slides, but rewrite the criteria slide for each fund, because the wording and weighting of criteria differ between programs. The AI assistant can rewrite the text on one slide while the rest stays as it is.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make one like this

Other presentation examples

Want the steps in the builder? Read Make a pitch presentation with AI, then Edit your deck with the AI assistant. For everything this generator can do, see the presentation maker.

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .