You're pledging to donate if the project hits its minimum goal and gets approved. If not, your funds will be returned.
$5,475 left to reach the funding goal.
Hydrogeospatial Consultancy proposes a twelve-week evaluation of HydroChirongoTwin AI, a developing decision-support product for water engineers and operators in Zimbabwe. We seek US$5,475 to test a bounded operational use case and produce a public report on the evaluation method, findings and limitations.
The charitable purpose of this proposed grant is to generate useful evidence for people assessing water-system decision support. It is not a request to finance general commercial expansion. The work plan and funding parameters below are proposed for this grant and would begin only after funding, the necessary permissions and an appropriate grant agreement.
The founder reports a prototype still being tested. Its technical proposal describes a React/TypeScript interface, Django services, operational databases and sensor-gateway integration. Numerical forecasts use a deterministic hourly baseline. A locally hosted Qwen2 model through Ollama is intended to explain the available operational context and highlight uncertainty. The model is not proof of a leak or the numerical forecasting engine. Human engineers retain operational decisions; autonomous pump and valve control are outside the reported scope.
There is no verified commercial AI pilot, measured AI performance or measured water-saving outcome. Current preparation records zero AI-product users, paying users and revenue. The parent company's separately reported paid telemetry work does not establish AI-product traction or permission to reuse client data.
What are this project's goals? How will you achieve them?
We want to learn whether reliable telemetry, simple forecasts and grounded explanations help engineers review water-system conditions. We would start by defining one narrow operational question and documenting calibration, missing or stale readings and the limits of available meter coverage. Any institutional participation or use of non-public data would need its own written permission.
We would then compare baseline forecasts with observed readings and assess explanations for errors and unsupported statements. Subject to institutional permission, operator walkthroughs would record task completion, review time, mistakes and feedback. The final phase would analyse these findings and prepare a validation report containing only information authorised for public release.
The proposed working period is twelve weeks after funding and permissions are in place. The budget assumes three four-week planning periods, with a proposed project allocation of about ten hours per founder per week. This allocation would be part of their company work, and the same time or expenses would not be charged to other projects or grants.
How will you know it worked?
The primary deliverable would be a public report explaining the evaluation method, dataset limitations, forecast comparisons, explanation errors and, if participation is authorised, operator findings. Negative results would be included. We would record data completeness and the effort and cost required to maintain the evaluated deployment.
Success at this stage means obtaining credible evidence for a decision about further testing, rather than claiming a predefined improvement. No particular reduction in water loss, energy use or emissions is promised. Such outcomes would need adequate measurement, a defensible baseline and a credible attribution method. We would not publish confidential operational data, personal information or proprietary source code under this proposal.
How will this funding be used?
We propose an all-or-nothing request of US$5,475 for the defined evaluation. The minimum and maximum funding goal would both be US$5,475. These figures are a proposed project budget, not historic expenses, supplier quotations or current payroll. They adapt the existing company planning allowances to this specific evaluation.
Proposed budget in USD:
Founder compensation: 2,400.00
Payroll and compliance provision: 225.00
Water-engineering review allowance: 500.00
Hosting and model operations: 450.00
Internet: 75.00
Workspace: 225.00
Electricity and backup power: 150.00
Local field transport: 400.00
Equipment and replacements: 350.00
Accounting and administration: 112.50
Phones and communications: 75.00
Operator discovery and feedback: 150.00
Insurance and security allowance: 112.50
Contingency: 250.00
Total: 5,475.00
Founder compensation uses 25% of the earlier US$800-per-founder monthly planning rate over three four-week periods. Payroll, shared overhead and other amounts are allowances requiring appropriate records and project attribution. The proposed water-engineering reviewer is not yet contracted. Grant funds would be used only for the agreed charitable project; any binding spending or reporting obligations would depend on the separately reviewed grant agreement.
Who is on your team? What's your track record on similar projects?
The confirmed Hydrogeospatial founders are Panashe Jeche, Progress Murambadoro, Everjoy Sibanda and Gamuchirai Chigerwe. Recorded roles cover interface development, backend development, data analysis and research respectively. Panashe is the authorised funding contact.
The parent company has founder-reported paid operational telemetry experience in Zimbabwe. Those projects are distinct from the AI product and do not establish a signed AI pilot, independent product validation or rights to institutional data. The team works across projects; the grant-specific time allocation described above is proposed for this evaluation.
What are the most likely causes and outcomes if this project fails?
The main risks are inadequate data quality, insufficient meter coverage, lack of institutional permission, limited operator participation and explanations that misstate the evidence. Funding at this scale would not remedy major infrastructure deficiencies.
If permissions or data are insufficient, the project may be unable to conduct the intended field evaluation. It would not describe a laboratory or internal test as an institutional pilot. Any material change to the funded scope would need agreement with the funder. The report would explain the limitations and failed approaches; we would not claim water savings or successful deployment without evidence.
How much money have you raised in the last 12 months, and from where?
Founder reports record no outside equity, grants or business loans received by Hydrogeospatial. Actual founder contributions have not been reconciled, so we cannot report a verified total of founder funding received. We do not count personal savings or unconfirmed pledges as money raised, available company cash or grant co-funding. Parent-company customer income is separate from investment or grant funding and is not presented as AI-product revenue.
AI assistance disclosure
This proposal was drafted with ChatGPT/Codex assistance using the prepared technical and funding documents and founder-confirmed records. The applicant is responsible for reviewing its accuracy. We acknowledge that Manifund may flag the text as AI-written and exclude flagged proposals from its home-page view.