Competitive research grants as evidence — where they actually fit

Had secured a couple of competitively awarded research grants and had to think through where this evidence actually belonged, since a grant isn't explicitly named in any single one of the ten criteria the way an award or a publication is. What I concluded, with input from my attorney: a genuinely competitive, peer-reviewed grant can support the awards criterion if it functions like a prize (national or international recognition through a selective process), and separately can support the broader narrative about being well-regarded and funded to do significant work. I documented the grant's selectivity (acceptance rate if available, the review process, the funding body's standing) the same rigorous way I'd document any award. What mattered most in presenting it well: making clear the grant was competitively awarded through genuine peer evaluation, not simply applied for and automatically received — that distinction is exactly what separates a real "award for excellence" from routine funding administration.