Disambiguate the three sponsor relationships: who pays, where the money originated, and what kind of sponsor it is

[nate-layman]

Context

Research admins routinely need three independent answers about an award, and the UDM doesn't currently make all three queryable in one shot:

1. Who's giving us the money? The immediate sponsor of record. The legal counterparty on the agreement, the entity we invoice, the one whose terms govern.
2. Where did the money originate? The originating sponsor, especially for pass-through funding. Federal money flowing through a state agency or another university still has to be tracked back to its federal source for compliance, reporting, and indirect-rate treatment.
3. What type of sponsor are they? Federal vs. state vs. foundation vs. industry vs. internal. Drives indirect rates, audit thresholds, reporting cadence, and IP/publication terms.

These three are independent. A foundation (sponsor type: Foundation) might be the immediate sponsor (who's giving us the money) while the money actually originated in a federal flow-through grant (originating sponsor: federal). Without distinguishing all three, downstream reporting and compliance work has to be reconstructed by hand.

Where the UDM stands today

• Immediate sponsor — Award.Sponsor_Organization_ID ✓
• Originating sponsor — Award.Prime_Sponsor_Organization_ID ✓ in name, but the type of relationship and the funding mechanism aren't broken out
• Sponsor type — buried inside Organization.Organization_Type = 'Sponsor', one bucket for all sponsors ✗

The first works. The second exists but doesn't carry the metadata (originating program, federal Assistance Listing / CFDA, mechanism) needed to make it useful. The third is missing entirely.

Why making this explicit matters

• Pass-through reporting depends on knowing both ends of the funding chain. Subrecipient monitoring obligations, single-audit threshold calculations, and DATA Act reporting all branch on it.
• Indirect rate selection depends on type and origin. A foundation passing federal money may demand federal rates be honored even though the sponsor of record isn't federal.
• Strategic dashboards — "how much federal money are we touching, regardless of who handed it to us?" — require origin + type together.
• Audit and compliance — federal vs. non-federal distinctions kick in based on origin, not just the sponsor of record.

What this issue is asking for

Not a re-litigation of the deeper schema choices in the linked issues. Instead:

• A clear documentation pass naming the three relationships in the UDM (Sponsor, Originating Sponsor, Sponsor Type) and how they interact.
• A vignette example walking a pass-through scenario through all three fields.
• A coordinated decision on which schema changes (if any) come out of Sponsor type needs a richer taxonomy than the current Organization_Type value #46 and Funding source as a first-class concept distinct from Sponsor #47 so all three are captured cleanly together.
• Reference views or example queries that answer the three questions individually and combined.

Related issues (deeper-dive on each piece)

• Sponsor type needs a richer taxonomy than the current Organization_Type value #46 (Sponsor type taxonomy)
• Funding source as a first-class concept distinct from Sponsor #47 (Funding source as concept distinct from sponsor)
• Award lifetime, proposal UIDs, and the project/account boundary #43 (Award lifetime; touches on how identifiers persist across modifications, including sponsor changes)