You write it. We make it score.
EIC Accelerator · Horizon Europe · Eurostars · National schemes
The quality check reads your application the way the evaluation panel will — against the call's own criteria — and hands back edits, comments and the fix for every weak spot, from your first outline to the interview.
Written with the Dealflow grant team, who hold Horizon Europe funding of their own
01 Three ways you might arrive here
You are writing it
We read your outline first — what each section has to prove — then your full draft, so the weak spots are named while they are still cheap to fix.
You have a draft
Written in-house, and nobody outside your company has read it against the scoring criteria. We do that while there is still time to fix what it finds.
You have a rejection
The Evaluation Summary Report tells you exactly why it lost. We rework the proposal from the ESR for the next cut-off — most rejections are fixable ones.
02 How evaluators will read it
Three criteria, scored 0 to 5 each. This is where drafts lose points.
- Excellence
- Objectives read as marketing; state of the art missing; ambition not credible for the TRL claimed
- Impact
- No quantified outcomes; a dissemination plan that lists channels but no targets; market numbers without sources
- Implementation
- Work packages that don't map to the objectives; a budget that doesn't match the work; risks listed without mitigations
Each criterion is scored 0 to 5. Passing the thresholds is not enough — only the top of the ranked list gets funded, so the review aims at points, not at the minimum score.
03 What comes back
A full review takes five working days. Tell us your cut-off and we say on the first call whether we can make it.
- A score per criterion, the way the panel will see it
- Section-level comments with the fix, not just the fault
- Rewrites of the weakest sections, where wording is the problem
- A prioritised fix list sized to the time left before your cut-off
- Mock-interview coaching for the pitch stage, where the programme has one
From a review, in this format (illustrative)
Your dissemination plan names channels but no audiences or numbers. As written this scores a 2. Rewrite around three named user groups with adoption targets — the data for two of them is already in your §1.3.
WP3 carries 40% of the budget but only one deliverable. Evaluators will flag the mismatch. Split it, or move the pilot costs to WP4 where the activity sits.
Working against a cut-off? Tell us the date on a free call and we tell you what is fixable in the time you have left — and what to leave alone.
Get the draft scored
A free call first: what you have, your cut-off, and whether a review or a rework from the ESR fits it.
Different situation?
You have found the call.
Grant writing ›
You write it yourself — or already have.
You're here
The idea is yours, the partners are missing.
Consortium building ›