The Custom Forms Reporting area provides valuable insight into workflow activity and governance steps captured through form submissions. While certain fields such as Submitted Date and Form ID are available, key contextual fields — specifically Form Name and Submitted By (User) — are not currently exposed as reportable fields.

Because organizations frequently use custom forms to capture approvals, attestations, compliance checkpoints, and payment release confirmations, being able to report on which form was submitted and who submitted it is essential for governance validation and audit readiness.

Current Limitation:

• Form ID is available in Custom Forms Reporting, but Form Name is not.

• Submitted Date is reportable, but Submitted By (User Name) is not.

• This information appears to exist within system activity metadata, but is not surfaced as standalone reporting fields.

As a result, administrators must either:

• manually interpret form IDs, or

• create duplicate fields within forms to capture submitter identity

even though the platform already records who performed the submission.

Example Use Case:

Our organization uses custom forms to document governance approvals and payment release reviews. When generating reports or merge documents, reviewers need to verify that a certain person submitted the form and when that submission occurred.

Without Form Name and Submitted By fields available in Custom Forms Reporting, we must rely on manual reconciliation or duplicate data entry, which reduces efficiency and increases potential for inconsistency, as well as open ourselves up to control issues if we don't have workflow level permissions set correctly (ex: using a form capture a field to show who is approving, but allowing others to submit that form unknowingly - we are relying on the name captured in the field right now to say who approved it, rather than the metadata that exists to show who actually submitted that form.

Business Value:

• Strengthens governance and audit traceability by allowing organizations to rely on system-recorded submission metadata rather than manually captured form fields.

• Reduces potential control risk created when approver identity must be captured via editable form fields, which may be submitted by unintended users if workflow permissions are not perfectly aligned.

• Eliminates duplicate data capture and manual reconciliation processes that introduce inconsistency between user-entered values and actual system activity.

• Improves confidence in approval validation processes, particularly for payment release reviews and Delegation of Authority (DOA) verification.

• Enhances Custom Forms Reporting as a reliable source of truth for workflow actions, reinforcing GrantsConnect as the authoritative system of record.