The author’s reasoning doesn’t relate to intellectual value. The argument concerns whether there is harm to the J Foundation’s reputation, not whether there is a lack of intellectual value.

The author doesn’t try to conclude that someone must have received a grant on the basis of having satisfied a necessary condition for a grant. The conclusion concerns whether someone who already received a grant is satisfying what’s required of them.

The author assumes that failing to mention the good stuff J Foundation has done hurts the foundation’s reputation. This overlooks the possibility that there might be no reputational harm. Perhaps there’s no increase in reput., but that doens’t imply there has been a decrease.

Whether the recipient has tried to satisfy the conditions has no bearing on whether what they’ve done actually satisfies them. The argument concerns whether the recipient has actually satisfied the conditions.

The argument points out a particular condition that the author believes has not been satisfied. Even if other conditions have been met, that doesn’t affect an argument based on a purported violation of one particular condition.