Tools and processes to support stress tests of critical infrastructure

Expected outcomes

• Projects may contribute to some of the expected outcomes; say which ones and why.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO5), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “These solutions should be designed to be inclusive and accessible, considering the needs of diverse users and stakeholders.”
• “Solutions should allow flexible configuration taking into account the evolving nature of threats and hazards.”
• “If feasible they should also be adaptable to different sectors and should support stress testing under diverse environmental and geographical conditions, including operation in harsh and remote environments.”
• “Moreover, they should comply with the relevant legislative frameworks and allow application of the developed tools under the current regime taking into account the sensitivity and confidentiality of the processed information.”
• “Coordination among the successful proposals from this topic and projects funded under HORIZON-CL3-2025-01-INFRA-01: Open topic for improved preparedness for, response to and recovery from large-scale disruptions of critical infrastructures and HORIZON-CL3-2025-01-INFRA-02: Open topic for role of the human factor for resilience of European critical entities, should be envisaged in order to avoid duplication, share resources and exploit…”
• “In this topic the integration of the gender dimension (sex and gender analysis) in research and innovation content should be addressed only if relevant in relation to the objectives of the research effort.”
• “Where relevant, funded projects are encouraged to liaise with the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, for complementary real-scale testing at the Reaction Wall and HopLab of the European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA).”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• TRL: the topic expects TRL 6–7 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
• Innovation action: evaluators expect a plausible path to commercialisation and named first users or customers.
• Other Eligible Conditions: “In line with the “ restriction on control in innovation actions in critical technology areas ” delineated in General Annex B of the General Annexes, entities established in an eligible country but which are directly or indirectly controlled by China or by a legal entity established in China are not eligible to…”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “Subject to restrictions for the protection of European communication networks.”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The Joint Research Centre (JRC) may participate as member of the consortium selected for funding as a beneficiary with zero funding, or as an associated partner. The JRC will not participate in the preparation and submission of the proposal - see General Annex B.”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The following additional eligibility conditions apply: This topic requires involvement as beneficiaries of at least 3 relevant practitioners from EU Member States or Associated Countries. Depending on the specific proposal submitted, these practitioners should represent one or several of the following portfolios:…”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “authority responsible for critical infrastructure resilience,”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “civil protection authority,”

Impact pathway and traps

• The Joint Research Centre may take part. Decide whether its involvement helps, and say so if you include it.
• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• Link your outcomes to the destination's expected impacts in the Work Programme. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.