Unfortunately I don't think so. Here is a rough summary, based on my recollections, but I was only involved in one part of it so my memory or understanding might be awry:

• Charities etc. submit applications
• Funders choose evaluators to deputise (can be paid or unpaid)
• Evaluators read applications, do calls, read background, other due diligence etc.
• Evaluators write up their notes and assign the following parameters for each grant they looked at:
  • Marginal Utility of the First Dollar to this application
    • The process is invariant under a linear transformation so this is less onerous than it sounds
  • Dollar at which Marginal Utility = 0
  • (Optional) convexity/concavity 
• Evaluators read each others' notes and discuss, then make any final adjustments to their own inputs.
• Funders read these notes and review recordings of the discussions.
• Funders assign the following parameters to the Evaluators:
  • Marginal Utility of the First Dollar to this Evaluator
  • Dollar at which Marginal Utility = 0
  • (Optional) convexity/concavity
• The simulation then basically waterfalls the dollars down, where each funder gives $1,000 to the evaluator they think has the highest marginal utility, who then gives it to the charity they think has the highest marginal utility. Then all the marginal utilities are updated, and the next $1,000 is allocated to an Evaluator, who again then allocates it to a charity.

There were also some other 'social' elements like disclosure and conflict of interest policies and the like.

This has a number of properties:

• If an application is really liked by any one evaluator it will get funded, even if the others dislike it (unless they can persuade the one otherwise).
• Not every evaluator has to look at every grant.
• There is less incentive for evaluators to be dishonest than in other systems.
• It can be counter-intuitive what individual evaluators end up funding, because all their favourite ideas might end up being funded by someone else first.