Synthetic demonstration · fictional applicant
EIC Accelerator Stage 2 assessment
A full-dossier example using qualitative EIC verdicts, document-level evidence checks and cross-annex reconciliation.
Independent pre-submission simulation
NEUROWEAVE · Full application review
Evidence-depth assessment of the technology, market, implementation, investment case and supplied Stage 2 dossier.
Shortened structural preview: An actual paid report is substantially longer and more detailed. This sample shows how the review is organised and written, while a real report contains more findings, document-by-document analysis, evidence tracing, consistency checks and dossier-specific corrections. NEUROWEAVE and all evidence are fictional. This is not external technical due diligence, a technology-expert interview, panel ranking or jury prediction.
Stage 2 document ledger
| Document | Status | Review scope |
|---|
| Part B full proposal | Reviewed | Core technology, impact, implementation and funding case. |
| Implementation annex | Reviewed | Work packages, milestones, risks, resources and TRL path. |
| Pitch deck | Reviewed | Text claims and consistency; visual delivery only partially assessable. |
| FTO analysis | Reviewed | Scope, jurisdictions, residual risks and consistency—not a legal opinion. |
| LOI collection | Reviewed | Decision-maker specificity, problem evidence and conditions. |
| Financial and lump-sum workbooks | Reviewed | Readable sheets, assumptions, costs and cross-document consistency. |
| Video pitch / expert interview | Outside scope | No performance or external due-diligence conclusion inferred. |
Executive verdict
ExcellenceConvincing with reservationsThe core sensor is validated in a relevant environment, but the durability claim relies on a short accelerated test and the FTO scope is narrower than the commercial claim.
ImpactConvincing with reservationsCustomer pain and pricing are credible. The scale-up mechanism and conversion of conditional LOIs into procurement remain insufficiently evidenced.
Risk, implementation & needNot yet convincingThe requested equity, private co-finance, milestone plan and 24-month cash runway do not reconcile across Part B and the financial workbook.
Overall readiness: The dossier contains more evidence than a typical narrative-only application, but a panel can still challenge the investment logic because the funding amount, risk-retirement milestones and cash plan do not form one auditable chain.
Highest-priority dossier repairs
Critical repairFunding & implementation
The financing plan contains three incompatible cash needs
- Locations
- Part B §3.4; financial workbook “Funding” rows 18–31; deck slide 12
- Evidence
- Part B requests €9.5m to reach industrial qualification. The workbook shows a €12.1m cumulative need before break-even, while the deck presents a €7m round. No bridge, contingency or timing distinction explains the difference.
- Criterion effect
- The evaluator cannot determine whether the requested support is sufficient, proportionate or connected to the milestones that de-risk private investment.
- Dossier repair
- Create one sources-and-uses schedule by quarter. Reconcile grant, equity, existing cash, private co-finance and contingency to each risk-retirement milestone. Copy the same total and timing into Part B, deck and workbook.
- Re-review test
- Closing cash never becomes negative in the base case, and every funding source and use agrees across all three documents.
Model-answer pattern: “€[X] finances milestone [M] by [date], retiring [risk]. Existing cash contributes €[A], requested grant €[B], requested equity €[C], committed/private co-finance €[D], and €[E] contingency covers [assumption].”
High priorityImpact · Customer evidence
The LOIs confirm interest but not a path to purchase
- Locations
- Part B §2.2; LOIs 2, 3 and 5
- Evidence
- Three letters praise the concept. None names a budget owner, procurement condition, required validation result, estimated deployment quantity or decision date.
- Criterion effect
- Interest cannot be translated into a sales pipeline or used to validate the projected conversion rate.
- Dossier repair
- Replace or supplement generic letters with decision-maker evidence stating the operating problem, pilot condition, acceptance threshold, procurement route, potential quantity and indicative decision timing.
- Re-review test
- At least the first commercial cohort has a named decision owner and observable conversion condition.
Criterion-moving gapExcellence · IP/FTO
The FTO conclusion does not cover the product configuration being commercialised
- Locations
- FTO §4; Part B §1.5; deck slide 5
- Evidence
- The search covers the sensing element in the EU and US. The product claim includes the signal-processing pipeline and catheter integration, and the forecast includes Japan, but neither element appears in the documented scope.
- Criterion effect
- The protectability and freedom-to-operate narrative is broader than the supplied evidence.
- Dossier repair
- Align commercial claims to the current opinion or extend the professional review to the material system elements and target jurisdictions. Record residual risks and actions without claiming legal certainty.
- Re-review test
- Every product and jurisdiction claim in Part B maps to an identified FTO scope, residual risk or explicit limitation.
Risk-retirement and milestone audit
| Milestone | Current definition | Assessment | Required repair |
|---|
| MS2 Durability proven | “Successful long-term test” | Not measurable | Add cycles, failure rate, conditions, method and acceptance threshold. |
| MS4 Clinical workflow fit | ≥80% task completion in simulated use | Measurable | Add sample rationale and named owner for corrective action. |
| MS6 Investment readiness | Series A closed | External outcome | Use controllable evidence milestones: data room, diligence package and investor conditions met. |
Business coherence map
Works: relevant-environment evidence supports the core sensing claim, with durability still unresolved. Wanted: customer pain is credible, but purchase conditions are thin. Affordable: target pricing is stated, while gross-margin sensitivity to production yield is missing. Deliverable: the team and workplan are plausible, but the cash and milestone chain is broken.
Strategic alignment: current prototype → funded industrial qualification and workflow validation → regulated launch with manufacturing scale-up. The route is reconstructable, but the money required at each transition must be reconciled.
Revision order
- Rebuild one auditable sources-and-uses, runway and milestone table across the dossier.
- Convert generic LOIs into purchase-condition evidence and rebuild the sales funnel from it.
- Align IP/FTO scope, claims and territories.
- Quantify every technical milestone and attach an owner, method and decision consequence.
Review your Stage 2 dossier
Upload the full proposal and only the annexes you want reconciled. Your free preview arrives before any purchase decision.
Get my free score preview →