As a platform managing applications all the way from initial creation through to acquittals, we absolutely want this. (And its absence is one of the reasons we couldn’t immediately adopt the 360Giving standard). We have at least one grantmaking organisation that wants to publish rejected (“declined”) applications. It’s a minority for sure, but it may well grow, and we certainly encourage this kind of transparency in the sector.
There are several councils in Australia whose grantmaking processes are impressively open, with full disclosure of assessments and decisions available on their websites.
Our terminology, FWIW is: withdrawn, undecided, declined, approved. I don’t think we have a specific term post-acquittal (“Completed”). I don’t know about “expecting an organisation to make this update to their data” - I don’t think it’s problematic to leave a grant at “Approved”, rather than switching it to “Completed” some months/years later.
Notice also a difference in our terminology of “applications” (which we still call them even after approval) vs “grants” (which is such an ambiguous term, as it can mean both “things you can apply for” and “funded projects”).