Pillar: Digital, Industry and Space
Opening Date:
Deadline: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:00:00 (Brussels local time)
Modification Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024

Latest information:


GENERALISED FEEDBACK for successful applicants

after STAGE 1



In order to best ensure equal treatment, successful stage 1 applicants do not receive the evaluation summary reports (ESRs) for their proposals, but this generalised feedback with information and tips for preparing the full proposal.


Information & tips

Main shortcomings found in the proposals evaluated in Stage 1.







Clarity and Pertinence of Objectives

·     Most of the objectives are measurable and verifiable, with specific key performance indicators (KPIs) outlined. However, some benchmarks and baseline levels are not sufficiently detailed.

·     Realistic achievability of some objectives is not clearly demonstrated.

·     Starting TRLs of some key technologies and the credibility of achieveing target TRL levels are not explained in sufficient detail.


Soundness of methodology

·     The scientific methodology is not always clear and robust. The description of the underlying concepts, models and assumptions is not addressed in sufficient detail.

·     The methodological aspects regarding the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate technical robustness.

·     In some cases integration of expertise from various disciplines is not fully described.

·      Open science practices are followed but lack some details.

·     The data management and data storage are insufficiently described particularly the data handling, storage and sharing between partners.

·     The role of Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) disciplines is not well integrated.

·     Gender dimension considerations are insufficient.

·     In some proposals the risk analysis from an environmental perspective is not convincingly addressed.

·     Collaborations and synergies with existing projects are underdeveloped. Specific actions to enforce this collaborations are not clearly demonstrated.


Impact Assessment

·     The credibility of the pathways to achieve expected outcomes and impacts in some proposals is insufficiently described, particularly how the overall impact would be scaled up. Contributions to wider impacts in terms of achieving increased autonomy in key value chains are not explained in sufficient detail.

·     Potential barriers to outcomes and impacts are not consistently identified and mitigated. Some potential barriers are identified, and adequate measures are proposed, along with some generic mitigation procedures. However, the costs, risks associated with ‘alternative pathways for material sourcing,’ suply chains, R&I-related technological barriers, and economic barriers and their mitigations are not sufficiently described.

·     Negative environmental impacts and their management are often overlooked.



Author: Programmes & Funding Calls (Source:;programCode=HORIZON;callCode=HORIZON-CL4-2024-RESILIENCE-01-TWO-STAGE)