Sample Entity

What's changing

$8M of $23M active portfolio value (36%) sits in federal programs with FY2027 status changes.

17 active obligations lack an assistance listing number; their exposure is not visible from public records alone.

Trajectory under named scenarios

Directional under current configuration, not a prediction. Each bar is one named scenario's implied 24-month cumulative change to continuing program capacity, holding the stated assumptions. The chart compresses point estimates -- no uncertainty band is shown because the underlying scenarios don't yet carry uncertainty bounds. Detail with assumption blocks follows below.

Under NOAA Habitat Conservation IIJA authority lapses, FY2027

Would imply an annual change of -$7M in continuing program capacity, from the $8M of currently-active obligations tied to this scenario's programs.

Counterfactual under the assumptions above. Past obligations remain as obligated through their end dates; scenarios describe changes to future program capacity, not to currently-obligated awards.

Under All IIJA supplements expire simultaneously, FY2027

Would imply an annual change of -$7M in continuing program capacity, from the $8M of currently-active obligations tied to this scenario's programs.

Counterfactual under the assumptions above. Past obligations remain as obligated through their end dates; scenarios describe changes to future program capacity, not to currently-obligated awards.

What this portfolio is made of

22 active obligations totaling $23M across 11 distinct funding programs. The single largest (a federal grant) carries 36% of active value.

Match commitments on the active portfolio total $2M (9% of active value) -- the non-federal dollars this entity has committed to provide alongside current awards.

Closeout window: 8 active obligations end within the next 12 months, carrying $2M (8% of active value). These are the reports, finals, and match reconciliations that have to land in that window regardless of what else is happening.

Where projects interact

Across the active portfolio, 3 structural patterns surface where projects overlap in meaningful ways:

• 1 case of projects of the same type running in parallel
• 1 case of end-date clustering in the same seasonal window
• 1 case of match commitments compounding across awards

These are structural patterns in the data, not evaluations of portfolio quality. Each reflects a choice about how the portfolio is sequenced or sourced.

Methodology and sources

Methodology

Freehold's diagnostic assembles this portfolio from 23 public data sources and runs it through a complexity framework that distinguishes structural patterns from judgments of organizational quality. The sources, factors, and interaction taxonomy used here are listed below; the specific weights and normalization methods are internal and available on request.

Data sources

• Federal financial: USASpending.gov, Grants.gov, SAM.gov
• State project records: RCO PRISM, RCO ArcGIS
• Organizational: ProPublica 990s, IRS BMF, Federal Audit Clearinghouse
• Ecological: NOAA SHSTMP, USGS Water Services, WDFW Escapement, WDFW Fish Passage, WDFW SalmonScape
• Regulatory and programmatic: EPA ECHO, PSP Action Agenda, NEP Atlas, USGS PAD-US, WDFW HPA Permits, US Drought Monitor
• Sector context: Work Windows (USACE), WAC 220-660 vocabulary, Salmon Recovery Plans (WRIA), North of Falcon model runs

Portfolio Complexity factors

Fourteen factors compose the structural complexity view. They are named here; their weights and normalization are internal to the framework and are not surfaced in the primary Diagnostic.

1. Active obligation count
2. Active portfolio value
3. Obligations per staff
4. Match burden ratio
5. Funder concentration (Herfindahl)
6. Program concentration (single-program share)
7. Geographic concentration (WRIA coverage)
8. Reporting cadence diversity
9. End-date clustering
10. Match source diversity
11. Award-type diversity
12. Governance complexity
13. Ecological context complexity
14. Regulatory boundary density

Interaction taxonomy

The patterns described in the "where projects interact" block above map to these structural types:

• projects of the same type running in parallel
• end-date clustering in the same seasonal window
• match commitments compounding across awards
• overlapping geographic scope with distinct funding streams
• the same project surfacing in multiple public records

Anonymization posture

This sample is rendered at Freehold's public-observer audience setting, which suppresses entity names, EINs, exact award amounts, specific dates, and identifying geography. The structural shape -- obligation count, complexity factors, peer position, federal exposure -- is preserved. A real client diagnostic uses the entity's own audience setting and is not anonymized.

Scope and limitations

• Active obligations only. Obligations that ended before the snapshot are not in the active figures, though they remain visible in the ledger when marked historic.
• Public records only. County-level funding, in-kind and volunteer labor, private donations, internal budgets, carryforward balances, indirect cost rates, and any confidential funding sources are outside this analysis. Intake brings them in when they change the picture.
• Snapshot decays. Federal and state funding status changes on appropriation cycles. Figures older than 90 days should be refreshed before being relied on for time-sensitive decisions.
• Counterfactual scenarios are not predictions. The scenarios in "what's changing" describe what the portfolio would look like under specific stated assumptions, not what will happen.

Obligation ledger

Every active obligation in this Diagnostic, with the public-record fields that drove the analysis. Ledger is sorted by active value, descending.

Sources and provenance

Generated 2026-05-07T13:25:11Z · dataset 2026 by Freehold Advisory. Source-record IDs and retrieval timestamps for every obligation are available on request; the primary artifact keeps its surface clean.