What can be monitored
Four kinds of material a project can be designed around. A type listed here is not a promise that every source is public, licensed, or technically open.
Market, competitor and regulatory news
Selected outlets, regulators, and industry pages, where the project has a permitted way to read them.
Example question: Which new harbour-safety notices mention inspection duties in the regions we work?
Public tenders and private RFPs
Procurement notices and invitation documents the client can access, including private RFPs when the client provides them.
Example question: Which open notices match our trade, our region, and the project size we can deliver?
EU, national and regional funding calls
Calls from public programmes the team chooses. Coverage is the agreed list, not every programme in a country.
Example question: Which open calls match our location, capabilities and project size?
Grants, foundation programmes and partnership opportunities
Foundation rounds and partnership calls when a page, feed, or document is available to the project.
Example question: Which foundation rounds still accept a partner in our sector, and which rules are unclear?
How it works
Five steps, told with one fictional notice. Automation prepares the item. A person decides what to do with it.
The running example is a made-up tender: Port Alden Council asks for inspection of the east quay walkway. Port Alden is not a real buyer on this page, and the notice is not a live opportunity. The same item appears again in the sample below.
-
1
Collect from agreed sources
The workflow reads the sources named in the proposal, on the schedule you agree. In the sample, that is a fictional council procurement page the team already checks. A source that cannot be read is reported. Other portals are not searched just because they exist.
-
2
Extract key facts from pages or documents
From the sample notice the workflow keeps the title, the buyer Port Alden Council, the source address, the notice type, the publication date, the deadline and time zone, and the location. The contract value is not in the text, so that field stays “Needs review” instead of a guessed figure.
-
3
Match against the client criteria
Sample criteria: work in Port Alden, walkway or quay inspection, and a deadline that is still open on the review date. Location and service match. Value is unknown, so the reason says what matched and what is missing. An unclear item stays in the queue for a person.
-
4
Send a reviewable alert or queue item
The queue item shows the original title, a link back to the sample source, the extracted fields, and why it was matched. Status: Awaiting review. The sample does not email a buyer and does not submit a response.
-
5
Track a decision and prepare the next task
A reviewer can mark the item for a closer read or as a pass. If they continue, the next task is a draft, such as a list of documents the notice did not include. Sending that draft outside the team, or writing it into another system, waits for the approval rule in the proposal.
Where automation stops. Collection, extraction, matching, and a draft for review can be automated. Relevance, eligibility, and any application or external message stay with a person. Each item should link to its original source and show the match reasons.
Function library
A menu of possibilities for the proposal. Seeing a function here does not mean it is included, already connected, or available for every source.
A. Source intake
Ways a project might receive material, chosen per source:
- Published APIs
- RSS or other feeds
- Web pages the project is permitted to read
- Incoming email
- Documents the client provides
B. Document understanding
Ways to read what arrived, when that treatment is in scope:
- HTML and PDF parsing
- OCR where a scan needs it and the copy is usable
- Language detection
- Translation or a multilingual summary where that is appropriate
C. Structured extraction
Fields a reviewer often wants. Only fields the source supports are filled. A missing or unreadable value is shown as “Needs review”, not invented.
- Title, publisher or buyer, and source URL
- Opportunity type and status
- Publication date, deadline, and time zone
- Location, amount or contract value
- Eligibility notes and required documents
D. Relevance and quality
How an item is kept, grouped, or set aside. Uncertain cases have a route to a person.
- Inclusion and exclusion rules, plus semantic matching
- Exclusions and duplicate grouping
- Update and change detection
- Match reasons and a source snippet
- A review path when the match is uncertain
E. Follow-up
Where an approved finding can go. External sends, applications, or consequential system changes require the approval rules agreed in the project.
- Email or a team alert
- A digest or a review queue
- A calendar reminder
- A CRM or task draft
- A short opportunity brief
Illustrative sample workflow
Three fictional items: a news note, the east quay tender, and a funding call. Nothing here is fetched from a portal.
Illustrative sample data. No live portal connection, customer deployment, or measured result.
Choose News, Tender, or Funding. The labels Strong candidate and Needs review explain the sample. They are not a score.
News
Port Alden to require inspection logs before the 2027 harbour season
Source label: Sample news item, Port Alden Maritime Desk (fictional).
Needs review
Extracted fields
- Title
- Port Alden to require inspection logs before the 2027 harbour season
- Publisher
- Port Alden Maritime Desk
- Source URL
- https://example.com/port-alden/maritime-desk/inspection-logs
- Type
- Regulatory news
- Publication date
- 12 March 2026
- Deadline and time zone
- Needs review
- Location
- Port Alden harbour area
- Amount
- Needs review
- Eligibility
- Not an application. The note describes a record-keeping duty.
- Required documents
- Needs review
- Status
- Published sample
Why this may fit
- The sample topics include harbour safety rules in Port Alden.
- The note names inspection logs, which the sample criteria treat as relevant to quay maintenance.
- The sample publication date falls inside the agreed monitoring window.
Check before acting
- No deadline is stated.
- This is a news note, not a tender or a funding call.
- The publisher is fictional, so there is no one to contact.
Source evidence
Operators who maintain public harbour walkways will be asked to keep inspection logs before the 2027 season. The note does not open a procurement.
Draft alert
Review sample: harbour inspection-log note. A fictional news item may match the harbour-safety topic. The deadline was not in the text. Do not contact the publisher.
Status: Awaiting review
Tender
East quay walkway inspection services
Source label: Sample tender, Port Alden Council procurement notice (fictional).
Strong candidate
Extracted fields
- Title
- East quay walkway inspection services
- Buyer
- Port Alden Council
- Source URL
- https://example.com/port-alden/procurement/east-quay-inspection
- Type
- Public tender
- Publication date
- 4 March 2026
- Deadline and time zone
- 18 April 2026, 15:00 Port Alden time (sample zone)
- Location
- East quay, Port Alden
- Contract value
- Needs review
- Eligibility
- Quay or walkway inspection experience. Insurance minimum not stated.
- Required documents
- Method statement mentioned. Insurance certificate: Needs review.
- Status
- Open in the sample
Why this may fit
- The location is inside the sample operating area of Port Alden.
- The service is walkway inspection, which matches the sample capability.
- On the sample review date of 2 April 2026, the deadline is still ahead.
Check before acting
- Contract value is not in the excerpt.
- The insurance minimum is not stated.
- The notice is fictional and must not be used to prepare a real bid.
Source evidence
Port Alden Council invites tenders for inspection of the east quay walkway. A method statement is requested. The contract value is not stated in this notice excerpt.
Draft alert
Review queue: fictional walkway inspection tender. Strong candidate on location and service. Amount and insurance still need a person to read the source. No submission is made from this sample.
Status: Awaiting review
Funding
Harbour access improvement call
Source label: Sample funding call, Port Alden Regional Works Fund (fictional).
Needs review
Extracted fields
- Title
- Harbour access improvement call
- Publisher
- Port Alden Regional Works Fund
- Source URL
- https://example.com/port-alden/works-fund/harbour-access
- Type
- Regional funding call
- Publication date
- 20 February 2026
- Deadline and time zone
- 30 May 2026, 17:00 Port Alden time (sample)
- Location
- Port Alden region
- Amount
- Up to 80,000 sample currency units. Not a real grant.
- Eligibility
- Excerpt mentions public-access harbour projects. Legal form and match funding: Needs review.
- Required documents
- Project outline mentioned. Budget template: Needs review.
- Status
- Open in the sample
Why this may fit
- The call is in the agreed sample region.
- Harbour access matches the sample project type.
- The sample amount sits inside the sample band of under 100,000 units.
Check before acting
- Match-funding rules are not in the excerpt.
- It is unclear whether a company, a council, or a partnership may apply.
- Comparing the excerpt with sample criteria is a review aid, not a decision that anyone qualifies.
Source evidence
The Port Alden Regional Works Fund invites outlines for small harbour-access improvements. Match-funding rules are not included in this sample excerpt.
Draft alert
Review sample: harbour access call. Region and project type may fit. Who may apply, and whether match funding is required, still need a person. This draft is not an application.
Status: Awaiting review
Discover technical details
Each topic has a short business note. Open it for the technical note.
Source access
When a source publishes an API or a feed and it fits the workflow, that is the preferred way to read it. A website, a login, or a paid database is assessed on its own: whether access is allowed, whose credentials are used, how often it can be checked, and what happens when the page changes. A source named on this page is not an integration.
Discover technical details about source access
Each source is reviewed for rights to access it, credential handling, rate limits, and how the project notices a layout or schema change. A failed or blocked read is a dependency to resolve, not a silent skip.
News publishers and private databases are handled as licensed feeds or as access the client already holds. This page does not name a news product or a private database as a ready-made connection.
One official API a project might assess, as an example only, is the TED Search API documentation. Linking to it does not mean a Tyon project includes that API.
Extraction
The workflow reads the page or document and fills only the fields that source supports. If a value is missing or unreadable, it stays “Needs review”. The reviewer sees the gap instead of a guessed number or date.
Discover technical details about extraction
HTML and document parsing are the usual path. OCR is optional, and only where a scan needs it. Fields are checked for shape, such as a date that can be read and a deadline that still has a time zone. Language detection, and translation or a multilingual summary, are used where the project asks for them.
An unknown value stays unknown. It is not filled from a similar notice or from general model knowledge.
Matching
You agree what to include and what to leave out. The workflow can also compare meaning, so a notice written as “quay condition survey” can be considered against a criterion written as “walkway inspection”. Each item shows the reasons. Unclear items go to a person, and those decisions can be used later to tune the criteria.
Discover technical details about matching
Inclusion and exclusion rules are configurable and sit alongside semantic relevance. Match reasons point at evidence from the source, not at a hidden score. Human feedback, such as a pass or a closer read, is a way to revise the criteria. It is not treated as proof that future items will be right.
This page does not publish a match percentage or an accuracy figure.
Duplicates and changes
The same notice often appears twice, or a deadline moves. Where the source allows it, likely copies can be grouped and a later change can be flagged. Whether a change sends another alert is a rule in the proposal.
Discover technical details about duplicates and changes
When the source provides a stable identifier or a canonical URL, that is the preferred way to recognise the same notice. Similarity checks cover copies that do not share an identifier. Versioned notices and deadline updates are compared with the copy already in the queue. The re-alert policy says which changes deserve a new review item and which are recorded quietly.
Traceability
A reviewer can open the original source, see when it was collected, and read the passage used for the fields. Where the project includes it, later edits are kept as history.
Discover technical details about traceability
A scoped record can include the source link, the retrieval time, the extracted evidence, and a review status such as “Needs review”. A field note of that kind is a review flag. It is not a published certainty score. Audit history is included only where the proposal scopes it.
Operations
Checks run on the schedule you agree. If a source cannot be read, the team should see a failed-fetch alert rather than an empty queue that looks complete. The project can also sample quality and confirm that the agreed sources are still the ones being read.
Discover technical details about operations
Schedules, failed-fetch alerts, quality sampling, and agreed source-coverage checks are operating rules. They are written into the proposal with the source list. They do not expand coverage to sources that were never agreed.
Examples of sources a project might assess
Public official pages a team can look at when deciding where to start. A link is not a connection, a data licence, or coverage of every notice on that site.
- European Commission funding information
- EU Funding & Tenders Portal
- TED EU procurement notices
- Grants.gov search
- UK Contracts Finder
For news publishers and private databases, a project uses a licensed feed or access the client provides. This page does not name those products as integrations. The same limit applies to the official pages above: listing a source means it can be assessed, not that Tyon already monitors it.
What we define before building
One agreed production workflow. Scope, access, dependencies, integrations, approval points, and delivery terms are written in the proposal before build starts.
Which sources and regions matter
The source list, the regions, and who is allowed to read each source. A source that needs a login or a subscription is a dependency.
What counts as relevant
Inclusion rules, exclusions, and examples of items that should be kept or passed. Semantic matching is tuned against those examples.
Which fields must be extracted
The fields reviewers rely on, and which gaps must stay visible as “Needs review”.
Who reviews each type of item
News, tenders, and funding calls can have different reviewers. The proposal names them.
How often to check and alert
The schedule, what a failed fetch does, and which changes deserve a new alert.
Where approved findings should go
Email, a digest, the review queue, a calendar reminder, or a draft in the CRM or task tool named in the scope. Sending or writing outside the review step follows the approval rules.
What sample items will be used for acceptance testing
Agreed examples, including items that should match, items that should be excluded, and items with missing fields. Tests check that workflow. They do not prove that every future notice will be found or correctly judged.
The proposal states the agreed source list, workflow, tests, deployment, and handover. A start date is not a commitment until scope, access, and dependencies are confirmed. Optional source subscriptions and other third-party charges are scoped or billed separately, as Pricing specifies. Hosting, model and API usage, and additional workflows are separate in the same way.
How Tyon talks about access and deployment is on Security and data handling. Neighbouring patterns are on AI automation use cases. A branded assistant that answers questions from approved material is a different offer: custom white-label AI chatbots. To start this monitoring workflow, contact Tyon. Tyon replies by email. The form does not book a time.
Questions buyers ask
Common questions.
Can it monitor sources in several languages?
Yes, when language detection, translation, or a multilingual summary is part of the agreed workflow. Quality depends on the source text and is checked with the acceptance samples. The project does not automatically cover every language.
Can it read long PDFs or scanned notices?
HTML and PDF parsing can be included. OCR is used where a scan needs it and the image is readable enough. Long or poor scans can fail. Unreadable passages stay “Needs review” rather than being guessed.
Can it tell us whether we are eligible?
It can compare published criteria with the rules you provide and flag what is missing or unclear. That is a review aid. It is not a final determination of eligibility. A person decides whether to proceed.
What happens when a deadline or notice changes?
When the source provides a stable identifier, or the project can compare versions, a deadline change or an updated notice can be detected and re-alerted under the policy in the proposal. A change can be missed if the source does not show it. Not every portal offers a stable identifier.
Can it apply for funding or submit a tender automatically?
No. The workflow can prepare a brief or a draft task. Submitting an application, sending an external message, or changing another system waits for the approval rules in the proposal. This page does not include automatic submission.
Will it find every relevant opportunity?
No. Coverage is the agreed source list and schedule. Sources change, a fetch can fail, and matching can miss an item or include the wrong one. Uncertain cases go to review. The workflow is not a complete search of every portal.
Do we need to provide portal accounts or subscriptions?
Some sources are public pages or feeds. Others need a licence, a subscription, or credentials you provide. Tyon does not assume access you have not granted. Optional source subscriptions and third-party charges follow Pricing.
Can findings go to our CRM, spreadsheet, email, or task system?
They can go to the channel named in the scope: email, a digest, a review queue, a calendar reminder, or a draft in a CRM, spreadsheet, or task tool. The specific tools are confirmed in the proposal. External sends and system changes follow the approval rules.