Acquisition closed on 9 September 2026. Three directly linked DFF records establish a reported transfer of grant-selection decisions and subsequent board adoption. They do not supply the operative delegation, appointment decision or executed grant instrument. The previously accepted August 2026 announcement is reused context, not new independent confirmation.
The authority changes over time
The [8 October 2024 pilot announcement](http[local research file] by Thomas Vink, invited expressions of interest between 8 and 27 October. The initial process covered only pre-litigation grants; litigation-track funding was to continue under the existing process. The Peer Group would review applications and collectively decide which ones to recommend for support, replacing the prior expert-panel stage and reducing the grants team's decision role. Expansion into strategy, criteria and future member selection was an intention, not an accomplished transfer. Read: official-reader lines 9–12, 36–44; full substantive article read. Original: allocation-pilot2024.html.
The [25 March 2026 retrospective](http[local research file] reports that the first 2025 round involved ten peers choosing three pre-litigation projects. The second involved 17 peers selecting 13 projects across both grant types. It states that DFF's board formally adopted this decision-making process in March 2026, ending the pilot. Strategy, criteria and priority-setting remained subjects for further change. These are DFF's published accounts, not inspected board minutes. Read: lines 9–19 and 65–68. Original: allocation-retrospective2026.html.
The same retrospective describes staff facilitation and provision of previous-grantee information, other assessments and budgets. Participants report weighing legal avenues, prospects, budget justification, impact and protection of affected people, with competing priorities discussed collectively. These are descriptions of practice, not a published binding scoring rubric. No source inspected here identifies who sets the available budget or gives the group power to expand it. Read: lines 24, 28–38 and 43–49; full substantive discussion read.
What is actually allocated, and what remains unresolved
| Stage | Evidence and boundary |
|---|---|
| Member recruitment and eligibility | The 2024 call sought a mix including existing experts, grantees, applicants and the wider community; litigation expertise was not essential. Lived experience, intersecting issues and regional representation were sought. This describes desired composition, not exhaustive legal eligibility or a right to appointment. |
| Appointment and renewal | The current page says DFF ran an open call, received about 40 applications and began with ten members. It does not identify the appointing person/body, selection votes, term length, removal grounds or renewal rule. |
| Conflicts and confidentiality | The current page says all members sign Terms of Reference containing confidentiality and conflict policies, and are compensated. The actual terms, conflict definitions, disclosure obligations, recusal procedure and compensation amounts were not acquired. Permitting grantee/applicant participation does not establish self-dealing or failure to recuse. |
| Grant selection | Later records describe peers making grant decisions across both types. The earlier pilot called their output recommendations. Preserve these stages and dates; neither wording proves legal power to bind DFF to a contract. |
| Board and staff | The board is reported to have adopted the model; staff facilitate reviews. These roles do not establish either a retained award-by-award veto or its complete absence. |
| Signature, payment and redress | The three records do not disclose grant signatories, post-selection checks, payment authorisation, suspension/recovery rights or an applicant appeal procedure. Do not import Oak's separate grant-letter workflow into DFF's grants. |
The [current Community Peer Group page](http[local research file] supports the recruitment, signed-terms and compensation descriptions above (reader lines 5–9). Its roster records affiliations, not corporate reserved seats, and is not treated as an appointment instrument. Its references to a pilot remain visible alongside the linked March 2026 account of adoption; use the dated retrospective for that transition. Original: allocation-peer-group.html.
Consequence for the existing Liberty grant finding
The evidence now supports a more precise division: DFF established a process, the board reportedly adopted it, and peers reportedly selected projects within an available funding budget. A claim that DFF staff alone chose the June 2026 Liberty grant would erase this stated process. Conversely, saying the peers control the whole institution or that Oak/DFF retained no contractual rights would exceed the records. Public accounts of selection and internal debate do not identify the people who voted on Liberty or reveal its agreement.
The strongest alternative to a claim of complete authority transfer is that a genuine delegated selection process operates inside an institutional strategy, budget and legal framework whose reserved rights are not disclosed here. The exact discriminating records are the signed Peer Group Terms of Reference and incorporated conflict policy, the March 2026 board adoption/delegation resolution, and the applicable DFF grant agreement or execution policy. The first two would clarify appointment, recusal and the force of selections; the last would locate signature and payment authority. None was read in this bounded pass.
Custody and closure
The starting page was an actual link in the accepted August 2026 announcement; the two additional records were actual links on that page. All three original HTMLs were retained by one successful ordinary GET each. Full extracted derivatives and exact hashes/read scopes are in allocation-captures.json. No applications, forms, roster biographies, governance repositories or further linked articles were pursued. There was no failed-route recovery, account activity, outreach, graph, forest, current-work, visual or package change. Acquisition is closed for root review.