This week may be the quiet before another storm.

For Scotland's main funder of the arts and creative industries, Creative Scotland, the coming fortnight may be the most contentious and controversial since "the stushie" that toppled its leading executives in 2012. Then, as you may remember, many in the Scottish arts world were driven to anger and frustration by the newly configured arts funding organisation's policies, language and even what could be described as its institutional character. But after an efflorescence of petitions, open letters, open meetings and scabrous articles, the arts world saw Andrew Dixon, the organisation's first chief executive, leave his post, shortly followed by a key lieutenant, Venu Dhupa.

Since the arrival of new chief executive Janet Archer, in July last year, the quango has seen a period of relative calm. In that period (when, perhaps, the artistic community has been more than involved in the independence referendum) Ms Archer has sparked a series of art-form reviews, attempted to simplify the body's funding methods, and also the very language it uses. I say relative calm, because there have been serious squalls of discontent from the Scottish film industry in that time, over both a lack of funding and adequate support.

This disquiet had bubbled under ever since Scotland lost its dedicated screen agency, Scottish Screen, when it was absorbed into Creative Scotland. On Friday, Creative Scotland, partly in response to those calls for more support and greater clarity of purpose, published its three-year film strategy, which promises at least an effort to secure more funds for film - although the mysterious "financial instruments" to secure this new income have yet to be explained - as well as continued backing for the building of a film studio.

But a big test of Creative Scotland (Mark Two) comes next week. On Wednesday next, October 29, more than 260 arts organisations of all kinds - theatres, galleries, festivals, dance companies, and more - will hear whether they have been successful in applying for one of the most keenly-sought after funding pots on offer in the cultural economy: three year fixed funding. As it has been reported in this paper, the funding pot has been over subscribed. Creative Scotland has £90 million to spend in the next three year period. Those 264 organisations have applied for more than £212m in funding. Internally, the body was actually expecting more applications, perhaps up to the £300m range. And funding pots are generally over-subscribed. This, the body feels, is healthy and not a crisis: wide and eager desire for funds is a sign of how fertile and ambitious the Scottish arts scene is.

Even so, in this process, there will be the successful and the unsuccessful. The money on offer, which comes from the Scottish Government, is not a reduction. In the current three-year period (2012-15), Creative Scotland has given £89,628,247 to three-year funded companies (currently called Foundation Organisations), companies with 18-month to two-year funding deals (called Programme Organisations) and annual clients. But, clearly, some companies, and perhaps some surprising ones, will lose out. They will learn their fate on Wednesday next week and the list will be made public the following day. How the body handles this process and how it explains its decisions to those companies and the public (and the media) will be a sure test of both its reforms and its institutional temperament under the leadership of Ms Archer.

Those that lose out will be upset and angry - and, this being the arts world will be articulate enough and connected enough to say how angry and upset they are. Failing to secure regular funding has also been a fatal blow to companies in the past, and in kinder economies than that which faces Scotland right now.

The die is cast: the list of companies that will receive funding has been confirmed at a board meeting. Internally, there is a confidence that every consideration that could have been considered has been. Experts have been utilised and consulted, insiders say. A balance of funding size, art form, geographic spread and company scale has been struck, they feel. In short, Creative Scotland thinks it has got this one right. We shall all see soon.