One model of your organisation, and what it makes possible.
This page is the long version. What the fragmented alternative costs you, how the shared model works, what Pegasus calculates instead of generating, and live previews from the demo workspace.
Your mission shouldn’t run across twelve disconnected tools.
- Funding lives in spreadsheets.
- Applications live in documents.
- Relationships disappear into inboxes.
- Finance sits in another system.
- Evidence is buried in folders.
- Reporting becomes a scramble.
Pegasus connects the work.
Not by syncing twelve systems to each other, which multiplies the places a fact can be wrong. By holding one organisational model that every part of the work reads from and writes to.
- Funding spreadsheetTabs per funder, one owner
- DocumentsLast year's answers, somewhere
- EmailThe funder conversation
- CRMContacts, no context
- FinanceA different system entirely
- Survey dataExports nobody reopens
- Shared driveEvidence, by folder
- Impact reportsRebuilt from memory
- Funding
- Finance
- Relationships
- Programmes
- Evidence
- Impact
- Reports
One shared organisational model underneath all of it. Enter a funder once and it is the same funder in your pipeline, your grant, your relationship history and your report.
One operating system for the organisation behind the mission.
Pegasus is not seven modules wired together. It is one model of your organisation, with an intelligence layer over it and a trust layer under it. That is why a fact entered in one place is useful everywhere else without anyone syncing anything.
Funding
See every opportunity in one pipeline, and know which ones are worth your time.
Each opportunity carries its deadline, its award band and its eligibility rules. Pegasus scores the fit factor by factor and shows its working, so your team can disagree with it.
- Funding
- Applications
- Grants
Understand · Anticipate · Recommend
Each opportunity carries its deadline, its award band and its eligibility rules. Pegasus scores the fit factor by factor and shows its working, so your team can disagree with it.
- Funding
- Applications
- Grants
One shared model of your organisation. A funder, a grant, a programme, an indicator and a piece of evidence are the same records wherever they appear.
Sources, verification, permissions and organisation scope sit underneath every part of the product rather than beside them.
Not integrations between modules. One shared organisational model.
From understanding your organisation to proving what changed.
Nothing in Pegasus is entered for its own sake. Each stage of the cycle leaves something behind that the next one needs, so a year of work compounds into a starting position rather than an archive.
Organisation
Your objects, beneficiaries, regions and governance, recorded once.
Funding need
What the work costs, and what is not yet covered.
Opportunity
Eligibility checked before anyone writes a word.
Application
Answers drafted from evidence your team already approved.
Grant
Conditions, payments and deliverables tracked against the award.
Finance
Spend allocated to the programme it paid for.
Programme
Activities and outputs captured as delivery happens.
Evidence
Proof filed once, reusable everywhere.
Impact
Indicators move with the work, not before the deadline.
Report
Built from what is already recorded.
Relationship
The funder history that makes the next ask easier.
Next cycle
All of it becomes your starting position.
By the twelfth stage, the organisation knows more than it did at the first, and none of that had to be typed twice.
AI that knows your organisation. And knows when not to guess.
Most of what Pegasus knows is calculated, not generated. Fit, grant health, relationship health, evidence strength and every financial figure work out the same way every time, and the working is shown. AI helps around that: researching, drafting, summarising and explaining.
Pegasus calculates
- Eligibility against stated criteria
- Fit, factor by factor, with weights
- Grant health and delivery progress
- Relationship health and its signals
- Evidence strength and how current it is
- Runway, concentration and funding gaps
AI assists
- Researching public information about a funder
- Drafting an answer from your approved evidence
- Summarising a pipeline or a position
- Explaining what a calculated result means
“Should we apply for the Horizon Youth Opportunity Grant?”
Weighted across 8 factors. This is decision support: a score is a starting point for a conversation, and a low one is never a rejection.
- Eligibility. Organisation type and operating regions match the funder criteria.
- Strategic alignment. Shared priorities: Youth employment, Mental health and wellbeing, Disadvantage.
- Geographic alignment. Delivery regions fall within the funder's eligible locations.
- Organisation type
- Operating regions
- Strategic priorities
- Core activities
- Geographic reach
- Communities served
- Typical funding requirement
- Safeguarding status
- +4 more
- EligibilityPassed100
- Strategic alignmentPassed100
- Geographic alignmentPassed90
- Beneficiary alignmentPassed78
- Financial suitabilityPassed82
- Organisational readinessPassed100
- Evidence strengthPassed94
- Delivery capacityReview62
Create an application workspace and begin drafting priority answers.
- Confirm the funder's target beneficiary definition matches.
- Confirm restricted or unrestricted status against the budget.
- Delivery capacity should be confirmed by the programme lead.
Computed live from the demo workspace: the Youth Opportunity Grant 2026 record from Horizon Fund for Youth, assessed against Northstar Community Foundation’s profile and its 8 evidence items. Northstar is a fictional charity; the assessment is the product’s own.
The model doesn't decide.
A fit score is advice, not a verdict. A low score is never a rejection, and every factor names the evidence it used and what still needs a person to confirm.
The model doesn't redo the maths.
Anything that has to come out the same way twice comes from a tested function, not a generation. A model that recalculates your runway can get it wrong differently each time.
The model can't cite what it wasn't given.
Every draft returns the sources it actually used. If it cites one it was never shown, the draft is discarded rather than published with a plausible-looking reference.
Start with your organisation. Pegasus does the homework.
Every funding decision, application and report rests on the same handful of facts about who you are, who you serve and what you have already done. Today your team types them in. The plan is that Pegasus reads what is already public and brings it to you for confirmation.
The extraction core is built and tested. Structured data and labelled patterns are read with a locator for every fact, sources are ranked by authority, contradictions between two pages are raised rather than silently resolved, and a registration number is never inferred from a bare six-digit string.
The crawler and this review screen are not built. Confidence never promotes a fact: an extraction at 0.98 confidence is still “AI extracted” until a person confirms it.
- WebsiteOrganisation
- Regulator recordRegulator
- Annual reportOrganisation
- Published accountsRegulator
- Impact reportsSupporting
- Programme informationSupporting
“Not established publicly” is its own outcome, separate from “missing”. Pegasus does not turn the absence of a published fact into a gap in your organisation.
Coming to PegasusAn illustration of the designed onboarding flow, not a screen you can open today. The figures shown are illustrative of the four-way outcome split, not a measurement of any organisation.
Stop chasing funding. Start pursuing the right funding.
A wasted application costs a small team a fortnight it did not have. Pegasus checks the stated criteria before anyone writes a word, then shows its reasoning factor by factor so the decision stays yours.
- Funding need
- Opportunity
- Eligibility
- Fit
- Evidence readiness
- Decision
Youth Opportunity Grant 2026
- Award range
- £40,000 – £120,000
- Deadline
- 14 Aug 2026
- Duration
- 24 months
- Evidence available
- 8 items
- MetOrganisation type: Charity, Cic, Social EnterpriseNorthstar is a Charity
- MetLocation: England, West YorkshireOperates in West Yorkshire, Leeds, Bradford
- Youth employment
- Mental health and wellbeing
- Disadvantage
- Eligibilityweight 3100
Organisation type and operating regions match the funder criteria.
Uses: Organisation type, Operating regions
- Strategic alignmentweight 2.5100
Shared priorities: Youth employment, Mental health and wellbeing, Disadvantage.
Uses: Strategic priorities, Core activities
- Geographic alignmentweight 1.590
Delivery regions fall within the funder's eligible locations.
Uses: Operating regions, Geographic reach
- Beneficiary alignmentweight 278
Communities served: Young people aged 14 to 25, Care-experienced young people, Young people not in education, employment or training.
Uses: Communities served
- Financial suitabilityweight 1.582
Maximum award aligns with a typical requirement for a programme of this size.
Uses: Typical funding requirement
- Organisational readinessweight 1.5100
3 of 3 governance readiness signals recorded (safeguarding, data protection, insurance).
Uses: Safeguarding status, Data protection status, Insurance status
- Evidence strengthweight 1.594
8 evidence items available to support this application.
Uses: Evidence library
- Delivery capacityweight 162
Estimated from organisation size and current active programmes.
Uses: Organisation size
The real funding record and the real assessment, run against the demo workspace at build time. Northstar Community Foundation is a fictional UK charity; the opportunity is seeded demo data, clearly labelled as such inside the product.
Know where the money is going, and what happens next.
Restricted funding, programme economics, grant exposure and the cliff eighteen months out are the questions a trustee asks and a spreadsheet answers slowly. The engine that answers them is built and tested; the screens are being built now.
- Per participant
- £350
- 1,200 participants
- Per completion
- £427
- 984 completions
- Per employment outcome
- £890
- 472 outcomes
Each figure carries its method: total allocated cost ÷ measured delivery for the period, with 7% of it apportioned shared cost. A unit cost cannot be constructed in Pegasus without one.
Pegasus will not produce an SROI ratio from programme cost and outcome counts. Doing so would require monetising outcomes that have not been valued, and the resulting number would look precise and mean nothing.
In developmentThe calculation engine behind these figures is built and covered by 80 tests. The screen is not shipped. The numbers are the worked example from the finance test fixture, not any organisation’s accounts.
Money in Pegasus is held as integers and split by largest remainder, so allocations reconcile to the penny rather than to a rounding error. Everything derived from it keeps the inputs and the arithmetic that produced it.
Every figure shows its method.
You cannot get a unit cost out of Pegasus without the method that produced it. There is no code path that returns a bare number.
Not enough data means no number.
Where delivery data is too thin to support a cost per outcome, Pegasus withholds the figure and lists what it would need. It does not publish it with a caveat underneath.
A forecast is labelled a forecast.
If a figure rests on an assumption, it is a forecast, however exact the arithmetic looks.
Your relationships shouldn't disappear into inboxes.
The person who knows the funder leaves, and four years of context leaves with them. Pegasus holds people, organisations, interactions and commitments in the same model as the funding and the delivery, so the history belongs to the organisation.
- Person
- Organisation
- Funding
- Programme
- Communication
- Commitment
- Impact
All one record set. That is why the panel opposite can show a four-year history, the live grant, the report the funder is waiting for and the thing your team promised them, without anyone assembling it.
The Henderson Trust
The Henderson Trust · £95,000 active of £170,000 awarded · last contact 40 days ago
Relationship
- Status
- A track record of working together across more than one engagement.
- Known since
- 18 Jan 2022 (4 years)
- Relationship owner
- Amara Okafor
- Contacts
- Daniel Osei (Director)
Funding
- Funding history
- 2 grants · £170,000 total
- Youth Futures programme grant
- £95,000 · ends 31 Mar 2027 · 65% elapsed, 43% spent
Programmes and impact
- Youth Futures
- active · Leeds and Bradford
- Indicator performance
- 0 of 3 at or above target; 2 within 20% of target.
Reporting
- Six-monthly progress report
- due in 11 days (1 Aug 2026)
Recent communications
- 11 Jun 2026
- Request for the updated evaluation: Daniel asked for the 2026 interim evaluation ahead of the six-monthly report, and flagged the year three payment schedule.
- 22 Apr 2026
- Spring programme review: Reviewed mentoring outcomes. Agreed we would share case studies; that commitment is now closed.
- 4 Nov 2025
- Year one programme review: Walked through cohort one progression figures. Daniel asked for more on sustainability beyond the grant period.
Open commitments
- We owe
- Send the 2026 interim evaluation · due 1 Aug 2026
- They owe
- Confirm the year three payment schedule · due 15 Sep 2026
Suggested discussion points
- Close out before the meeting: Send the 2026 interim evaluation
- Ask about: Confirm the year three payment schedule
- Reporting: Confirm expectations for Six-monthly progress report.
Not recorded in Pegasus
Nothing material is missing from this relationship. When something is, it is printed here rather than left out.
Assembled from the demo workspace’s own records. No model ran, which is why there is no confidence score on it. The Henderson Trust is a fictional funder in the seeded demo data. Email and calendar sync are designed and not yet built, so nothing here arrived from an inbox.
When the funder asks what changed, the answer is already there.
Reporting is painful because the evidence is assembled after the fact, by whoever is free, from whatever can still be found. Pegasus records the chain as the work happens, so the report is a view over what you already know.
- Grant
- Programme
- Participants
- Output
- Outcome
- Impact report
Where did this figure come from?
Select a figure to open its provenance. Both are real claims in the demo workspace, and they are deliberately different shapes.
The second figure’s arithmetic is exact, and Pegasus still records it as a forecast, because it stands on an assumption nobody has approved. Certainty is inherited, not asserted.
- Value
- Northstar supported 1,284 young people through Youth Futures in 2025.
- Subject
- Youth Futures
- Period
- 2025
- Source
- Youth Futures independent evaluation 2025
- Locator
- page 14
- Source authority
- Supporting
- Produced by
- A person in your team
- Related programme
- Youth Futures
- Related grant
- Youth Futures programme grant
Real claims and indicators from the demo workspace. Reports themselves are not yet rebuilt from live claims. A published report still holds the text it was written with, so correcting a figure does not silently rewrite last year’s report. Connecting the two is the next piece of work, and the provenance model above is what it will be built on.
Built around evidence, not AI theatre.
The interesting engineering in Pegasus is not the model call. It is everything that makes a model call safe to rely on: the deterministic core it sits beside, the provenance it has to satisfy, and the approval it cannot bypass.
Fit you can argue with
Eight weighted factors, each with a reason, the evidence it used and what it assumed. No score without an explanation.
Figures that name their source
A figure carries the evidence item it came from, where in it, the period it covers and whether it has been verified.
Approval by a named person
Every AI output is a draft. Approving it is an explicit act by someone, and it is recorded.
Financial maths that refuses to guess
In developmentWhole-pence money, exact splitting, a method on every figure, and a blank where the data will not carry one.
AI that only sees your records
Context is built from your own organisation's data, and a draft that cites something it was not given is rejected.
Permissions checked on every action
Every action that changes data is gated, and a build-failing check stops a new one shipping without a gate.
This is the working application, not a mockup.
Every panel below is rendered from the demo workspace: Northstar Community Foundation, a fictional UK charity whose records are labelled as sample data throughout the product. Open the demo and you will find these exact screens.
Good morning. Here is where Northstar Community Foundation stands.
Your organisation's position for the week.
- Final grant report closes in 7 daysDigital Bridge delivery grant. Confirm the submission is on track.
- Digital Inclusion Programme closes in 10 daysTechForward Foundation. Confirm the submission is on track.
- 1 answer ready for reviewHorizon Youth Opportunity Grant 2026. 3 of 4 answers still need attention.
Built by Pegasus Information Studio.
Pegasus Information Studio designs and builds high-performance software, and embeds AI into everyday work where it earns its place. Mission OS is that practice turned toward the sector we care most about: the organisations doing the hardest work with the least slack. It is our own product, built in the open against a published architecture and a standard of evidence we hold ourselves to.
Visit pegasus-studio.coSpend less time running the organisation. More time moving the mission forward.
Bring funding, programmes, finance, relationships, evidence, impact and reporting into one intelligent operating system built for mission-driven work.
Tell us what your team is wrestling with.
Whether you want a guided walkthrough, a second opinion on your funding pipeline, or a route off a decade of spreadsheets, start here and a person will read it.
Prefer email? joel@pegasus-studio.co
All conversations are confidential.