When an eligibility summary conflicts with a funder’s page, the applicant should treat the conflict as unresolved and avoid relying on the summary until the relevant official wording has been checked. The next step is to compare the exact statements, distinguish eligibility from application procedure, and confirm any remaining ambiguity with the funder or the relevant programme institution.
Start with the exact conflict
The applicant should record what the summary claims and compare it with the corresponding wording on the funder’s page. A paraphrase should not be treated as equivalent to the original without checking whether it changes the condition, scope, or application route.
The comparison should focus on the specific point in dispute rather than on which version appears more convenient or favorable.
Separate eligibility from the application route
The two cited examples concern different questions.
For eligibility, Chevening states: “You must meet our eligibility criteria to apply for a Chevening Scholarship.” If a summary conflicts with that statement, the applicant should return to the Chevening eligibility page and compare the wording directly.
For the application process, Erasmus+ states: “Students apply directly to the institution running their chosen programme.” If a summary describes a different destination or procedure for a joint-master application, the applicant should check that claim against the Erasmus+ page.
Keeping these issues separate makes the conflict easier to identify: one statement concerns whether eligibility criteria must be met, while the other concerns where an application is submitted.
What still needs confirmation
The cited statements do not establish that an eligibility summary is approved, current, or able to override the funder’s page. They also do not resolve every programme-specific question. The applicant must confirm the exact programme instructions and any matter not covered by the cited wording.
If the official page still leaves the point unclear, the applicant should seek direct confirmation from the funder. For the Erasmus+ joint-master example, the institution running the chosen programme is the relevant institution to consult about the application route. Until the ambiguity is resolved, the applicant should preserve both versions and should not treat the summary as a final decision.