Synthetic demonstration · fictional consortium
Eurostars proposal assessment
A native Eurostars example focused on the decisive weakest criterion, consortium necessity, commercial readiness and cross-document consistency.
Independent pre-submission simulation
AQUASENSE · Collaborative R&D review
Assessment of eligibility signals, applied innovation, market impact, consortium logic, cost consistency and time to market.
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 sub-criterion analysis, findings, evidence tracing, consistency checks and proposal-specific corrections. AQUASENSE, its partners and all figures are fictional. Scores simulate one consolidated pre-submission view—not three official remote experts or an Independent Evaluation Panel ranking.
Native Eurostars threshold view
Quality & efficiency4.1 / 6 · passes
Strong complementary roles, weakened by cost-table inconsistencies.
Impact3.3 / 6 · fails
Below the decisive 3.6 criterion threshold.
Excellence4.2 / 6 · passes
Credible technical challenge with validation gaps.
Threshold conclusion: Not recommended in the current version because Impact is below 3.6. Strength in the other criteria cannot offset this. Even after all criteria pass, selection remains rank-based.
Time-to-market judgement: The stated launch six months after project end is not yet realistic because certification, production transfer and channel onboarding are not scheduled or resourced.
Eligibility signals—not legal certification
| Signal | Observed evidence | Risk |
|---|
| Innovative SME leads | Nordic SME is coordinator and owns 44% of costs. | No evident risk |
| At least 2 independent entities / countries | Three stated independent entities in Norway, Spain and Germany. | No evident risk |
| Eurostars-SME budget ≥50% | Application states 54%; subcontracting treatment is unclear. | Recalculate excluding subcontracting |
| No participant or country >70% | Largest partner/country share appears 44%. | No evident risk |
| Duration ≤36 months | 30 months. | No evident risk |
| Civil application / public funding | Civil water monitoring stated; national funding request indicated. | Verify live national rules |
Criterion assessment
StrengthExcellence
The technical work addresses a genuine applied challenge
The proposal connects low-power nitrate sensing, antifouling materials and edge calibration to a defined 18-month field-validation sequence. The research partner develops the coating, the lead SME integrates the sensing platform, and the utility partner validates it in operating water networks.
Threshold-criticalImpact · Market
The obtainable market is derived from an unsupported global share
- Location
- Impact §2.1 and financial table §2.4
- Evidence
- The proposal applies 0.5% to a €4.8bn global monitoring market. It does not identify addressable utilities by country, procurement cycles, channel capacity, installed price or annual service revenue.
- Score effect
- Market size and commercialisation sub-criteria cannot reach a convincing Eurostars level because the sales forecast is not reproducible.
- Correction
- Build the initial SOM from named territories, eligible utility accounts, tender frequency, addressable sites, unit/service price, channel capacity and year-by-year conversion. Add sources and a downside case.
- Re-review test
- The five-year unit and revenue ramp follows directly from stated accounts, conversion, timing and price.
Model-answer pattern: “In [countries], [source] identifies [N] utilities operating [N] eligible sites. Our two channels can qualify [N] accounts/year; at [%] conversion and €[X] installed plus €[Y] annual service, the obtainable revenue is €[Z].”
High priorityImplementation · Costs
Personnel costs and person-months do not reconcile
- Locations
- Work package table WP3; partner cost table rows 22–31; narrative §3.2
- Evidence
- The German partner is allocated 18 person-months in the narrative and 14 in the cost table. The implied monthly rate differs by 27% between WP3 and the partner budget.
- Score effect
- The discrepancy weakens planning realism and reasonable cost structure, even though the partner role is relevant.
- Correction
- Create one partner-by-task resource register and reconcile person-months, labour cost and task allocation across every table and paragraph.
- Re-review test
- Every partner's person-month and labour-cost totals are identical across narrative, work packages and the cost table.
Criterion-moving gapImpact · Time to market
The six-month launch claim omits the certification and channel path
- Location
- Impact §2.3; Gantt chart
- Evidence
- Commercial launch is stated for month 36, six months after project completion. No certification task, production-transfer gate, distributor onboarding or post-project funding appears in the schedule.
- Correction
- Add the regulatory/quality steps, manufacturing-readiness threshold, responsible owner, channel contracting, capital need and earliest defensible launch date.
- Re-review test
- The launch date is supported by a complete critical path with owners, durations, dependencies and finance.
International cooperation test
| Partner | Essential development contribution | Assessment |
|---|
| Nordic Sensors AS | Sensor electronics, integration and product ownership. | Essential and well located |
| FraunLab GmbH | Antifouling coating and accelerated-aging method. | Capability not held by lead SME |
| Agua Validación SL | Field protocol and validation in live networks. | Useful, but the development deliverable and commercial benefit need sharper definition |
Revision order
- Rebuild Impact around a sourced bottom-up SOM, buying process and conservative sales ramp.
- Add a defensible certification-to-launch critical path and post-project finance.
- Reconcile all person-month and cost figures.
- Make the utility partner's co-development deliverable and post-project benefit explicit.
Review your Eurostars application
Find the weakest criterion and the inconsistencies that can undermine all three expert reviews.
Get my free score preview →