Chapter 12 explains how a completed proposal draft becomes a funder-ready submission through deliberate editing, structured review, and strategic revision. Rather than treating editing as simply correcting errors, the chapter presents these activities as rhetorical practices that test whether the proposal is clear, credible, compliant, persuasive, and aligned with the funder’s expectations. Technical editing addresses clarity, consistency, formatting, visuals, and compliance, while rhetorical and stylistic editing considers unified voice and alignment with funder terminology and priorities. The chapter then introduces structured review practices, including standard operating procedures, reviewer selection, internal instructions and scorecards, and color team reviews. AI can serve as a reviewer or evaluator when used iteratively and critically, but its recommendations require human assessment. Following review, proposal teams must triage feedback according to compliance, scoring, clarity, feasibility, strategy, and deadline. Final checks protect the proposal from preventable errors involving sections, limits, attachments, formatting, and file preparation. The chapter ultimately argues that revision is not merely correction; it is a process of strategically re-envisioning the proposal so that its argument remains coherent, persuasive, compliant, and funder-aligned.

The chapter covers: