Requirements first
Separate mandatory gates from scored criteria so an ineligible submission cannot quietly become a competitive winner.
Zinji
Zinji is a premium, criteria-driven evaluation platform for teams reviewing proposals, grant applications, funding requests, vendor submissions, and other competitive selections. It evaluates submissions against the actual requirements and rubric, traces results back to source evidence, surfaces gaps and conflicts, and produces a clear, auditable decision record.
Validation milestone complete
Zinji's core evaluation engine has completed structured internal validation across multi-scenario benchmark testing, including eligibility rules, numerical thresholds, conflicting evidence, rubric scoring, ranking integrity, source traceability, and auditability. Real-world pilot use is the next layer of validation.
The proof
The product walkthrough will follow one evaluation from requirements and rubric through scoring, eligibility review, ranking, source evidence, and the final audit record.
Separate mandatory gates from scored criteria so an ineligible submission cannot quietly become a competitive winner.
Criterion results remain traceable to the source material used to support the evaluation.
Missing support, contradictory figures, and review signals stay visible instead of disappearing inside a spreadsheet.
Ranking, requirements, evidence, reviewer context, and export history stay connected in one decision record.
Where Zinji fits
Procurement & vendor selection
RFPs, RFQs, source selections, and structured supplier reviews.
Grants & funding
Foundation grants, public funding rounds, research awards, and competitive applications.
Advisory & consulting
Repeatable evaluation infrastructure for firms that run reviews on behalf of clients.
Other competitive selections
Any process where submissions must be evaluated against defined requirements and criteria.
Real-world pilot program
Start with a completed, low-risk, or upcoming evaluation. Zinji can run alongside your existing process so your team can compare evidence coverage, scoring consistency, review burden, and auditability using your own materials.