By job
Four reviewers, one rubric, one decision
Review work isn't a yes/no gate. It's several people assessing the same submission against the same criteria, then someone weighing what came back and signing off. stepbase runs the scoring, holds the panel together, and records what the decision rested on.
The rubric exists. It's in a document nobody scores in.
Everyone agrees on the criteria. What breaks is the collecting: a folder of applications, a scoring sheet emailed to five reviewers, three versions back, one reviewer who used a 1-5 scale on a 1-10 rubric, and someone averaging it by hand the night before the committee meets. By the time you decide, nobody can say why applicant 14 beat applicant 9, and if a rejected applicant asks, you're reconstructing it from your inbox.
Today
- Submissions live in a shared folder, scoring sheets live in email
- Reviewers score in their own copy, on their own interpretation of the scale
- Someone chases the two reviewers who haven't sent anything back
- Totals are added up by hand the day before the committee sits
- Comparing candidates means opening six files side by side
- The decision is recorded as an outcome, not as a reason
On stepbase
- Each submission arrives as its own tracked file, ready to review
- Every reviewer opens the same scorecard and scores independently
- The stage waits for the panel: all of them, or the number you set
- Scores land in one place and route the file automatically by band
- Competing entries are ranked side by side in one screen, not six
- The sign-off, its rationale, and every score behind it are on the record
How it works
Screen before you spend panel time
A first pass checks the file is complete and eligible. Anything that fails closes on a recorded reason instead of consuming five reviewers' evenings.
Score on one rubric
A multi-review stage gives every reviewer the same form: the same criteria, the same scale, their own independent submission. You choose whether the stage moves on when everyone has scored, when a set number have, or on the first response.
Let the scores do the sorting
Conditions read the scores and route on them: shortlist above a threshold, waitlist the middle band, decline the rest. Conditions can also check across reviewers, like routing any file where a single reviewer scored above 8.
Compare the shortlist
When entries are competing for the same slot (bids, proposals, cohort places), a compare and select stage ranks them side by side so the panel picks a winner rather than approving each one in isolation.
Sign off, with the reason attached
The final decision is a named person's action on a specific outcome, with a required comment. Who decided, when, on what evidence, and where it went next are all captured automatically.
Start from a template
Every template is fully editable: change the stages, forms, and routing to match how you work.
Admissions
Applications screened by the office that owns the programme, scored by every reviewer against one rubric, and decided by the director, on a board and a dashboard the whole office reads.
View templateGrant Application
Intake, eligibility checks, reviewer scoring, and committee decisions.
View templateVendor Onboarding
Multi-team checks for compliance, legal, and finance.
View templateFAQ