The three changes that move your text
The change log inside Part B v2.0 describes itself in one line: “First version of the simplified template implementing the 2026 EIC Work Programme.” Three consequences follow from that, and each one relocates material you have probably already written.
1. The narrative is 20 pages, and the cover counts
The full proposal used to run to roughly fifty pages. It is now 20 pages including the cover page, with an executive summary of about half a page. The enforcement is unusually blunt: if you upload an over-long proposal before the deadline you get a warning and a chance to fix it, but after the deadline the excess pages are automatically made invisible and the experts simply never see them. Nobody tells you which pages were lost. You are also told explicitly that the proposal is self-contained and that experts are instructed to ignore hyperlinks designed to expand it — so the old trick of parking detail behind a link does not work.
The formatting conditions are worth reading carefully because one clause catches almost everyone: the 11-point minimum and single line spacing apply to text inside tables, not only to body paragraphs. Shrinking a work-package table to reclaim half a page is a visible breach.
2. Three topic areas, mapping one-to-one onto the criteria
The structure is now flat and predictable. Topic area 1 is Technology and carries Excellence. Topic area 2 is Market and carries Impact. Topic area 3 is Team, financial needs and implementation, and carries Level of risk, implementation and need for Union support. Underneath sit ten numbered questions, two of which are conditional.
| Section | What it now asks |
|---|---|
| 1.1 | Novelty and breakthrough nature — the deep-tech basis, disruptive potential against existing and alternative solutions, a significant cost or performance improvement, and empirical data. |
| 1.2 | Technology maturity — demonstration that all aspects of TRL 5 are complete, meaning validation in a relevant environment for your application. |
| 1.3 | IP strategy — patents granted or pending, trade secrets, other IP elements, and FTO status. |
| 2.1 | Market opportunity — total market and realistic share, go-to-market, customer value proposition, partnerships and adoption. |
| 2.2 | Business and revenue model and growth strategy — the model, the projections, and the assumptions behind them. |
| 2.3 | Broader impact — European technological leadership, reduced dependency on other regions, environmental and social impact. |
| 2.4 | Challenge alignment — Challenges only, with metrics. |
| 2.5 | STEP impact — only for Challenges within STEP scope, with metrics. |
| 3.1 | Team capability — plus two official tables: the team table (with a gender column and a commitment percentage) and the governance table, whose fully diluted column must total exactly 100%. |
| 3.2 | Risk level of the investment and leverage effect — branches by funding form. |
| 3.3 | Risk management — technological, market, financial and regulatory risks, mitigation, standards and future regulation. |
A useful discipline: answer 2.4 and 2.5 only when your topic triggers them. An Open proposal that answers Challenge alignment anyway has spent page budget on a question nobody asked.
3. Implementation moved out of Part B into its own annex
This is the change that relocates the most text. Work packages, deliverables, milestones, timing and effort no longer live in the narrative. They live in a separate implementation plan annex of up to 10 pages, structured around table 3.1a for the grant component (activities up to TRL 8), table 3.1aa for the investment component (TRL 9 and below where necessary), table 3.1b for the work-package descriptions, and table 3.1c for the grant deliverables.
Two knock-on effects are easy to miss. First, if you leave that material in Part B you lose pages that Technology, Market and need for Union support badly need — and you still have to file the annex. Second, the lump-sum budget workbook still instructs you to match “the list of work packages in the main proposal (Table 3.1a)”. That table is now in the annex. Follow the reference; the table is not missing.
The quieter changes
The ownership control declaration is triggered by a different thing
In 2024 the ownership control declaration was introduced as a mandatory annex for AI and quantum applications. That is no longer the rule. Version 5.0, dated 1 January 2026, is required for proposals under Challenge 2.4, Boosting the European Critical Raw Materials value chain, and for Open proposals within the scope of that Challenge — and in both cases only when the request is grant only. Blended finance and equity-only proposals under Challenge 2.4 do not file it.
Where it does apply, the disclosure threshold is 5%: any owner holding, directly or indirectly, at least 5% of capital or at least 5% of voting rights, followed by corporate governance, commercial links, financial links and any other source of control. Supporting documents are not required at application — they are requested later through a task notification to your PIC account.
Equity-only proposals upload templates blank
If you are requesting equity only, you still upload the lump-sum budget workbook and the implementation plan — as blank documents. Omitting them is a defect; uploading them blank is compliance. It follows that the #DIV/0! values sitting in an untouched financial workbook are template artefacts and mean nothing.
Letters of intent come with explicit failure criteria
The guidance template asks for all letters merged into a single PDF and lists the elements a good letter contains. More usefully, it names what fails: generic copy-paste “support” letters that outline no specific commitment, unsigned letters, undated letters, and letters from companies that are not customers, users or real investors. That is unusually direct language for an official template, and it is worth taking literally.
The AI-use clause is a disclosure obligation, not a prohibition
The template's guidance on generative AI requires applicants to verify accuracy and citations, provide a list of sources including AI-generated ones, check for reproduced text, and acknowledge the tool's limitations — while being transparent about which tools were used and how. Applicants remain fully responsible for every part of the proposal, including the parts a tool produced.
Version stamps, so you can check what you are working from
Every one of these files carries its own stamp. If the copy on your desk is older than the one below, download it again from your live call in the Funding & Tenders Portal.
| Document | Version | Dated |
|---|---|---|
| Part B — technical description | 2.0 | 6 November 2025 |
| Implementation plan | — | 11 November 2025 |
| Financial plan and equity needed | — | 11 November 2025 |
| Letter of intent guidance | — | 11 November 2025 |
| Budget table (detailed lump sum) | EIC 1.3 | 1 September 2025 |
| Ownership control declaration | 5.0 | 1 January 2026 |
| Ownership and control guidance | 2.0 | 1 January 2026 |
| Short proposal consent (NCP) | — | 22 October 2024 |
| Lump sum funding — guide for participants | 3.0 | 24 June 2024 |
The Work Programme sits above all of these. Where the amended EIC Work Programme 2026 and a template disagree, the Work Programme controls.
A short migration checklist
- Re-download every template from your live call and compare the stamp against the table above.
- Move work packages, deliverables and milestones out of Part B and into the implementation plan annex.
- Cut Part B to 20 pages including the cover, deciding yourself what goes rather than letting the deadline decide.
- Rebuild the narrative on the official 1.1–3.3 headings, in order, and keep the headings at submission.
- Reset all body and table text to at least 11 pt with standard spacing.
- Answer 2.4 and 2.5 only if your topic triggers them — and with metrics when it does.
- Make the governance table's fully diluted column total exactly 100%.
- Say where the 30% of costs the grant does not cover comes from.
- Adopt one work-package numbering and propagate it through the narrative, the annex, the budget workbook and the equity sheet.
- Check whether the ownership control declaration applies to you under the 2026 rule, not the 2024 one.
Not sure which annexes apply to you? The free annex checker asks five questions and gives you the exact list for your funding form and topic — including the page caps and the traps in the official files.
The structure is only the starting point
Getting your text into the right documents is necessary and earns nothing. Upload the dossier and get an independent, criteria-aligned review in 5–8 minutes — every finding names where it sits, which criterion it damages and how to fix it. Score preview and two priority fixes are free.
Sources and attribution
Based on the official European Commission templates for the EIC Accelerator 2026 calls and the accompanying Horizon Europe guidance documents, with the version stamps as listed above. © European Union. Reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU and the CC BY 4.0 licence; changes are indicated where we have summarised, restructured or commented. The European Commission does not endorse this page.
Where practice guidance is quoted it comes from the Access2EIC annotated templates, first edition February 2026, produced by the official Horizon Europe National Contact Point network for the EIC under Grant Agreement No 101046298 and reused with credit as their licence permits. NCP guidance describes how criteria have been read in practice; it is not an official requirement.