Synthetic demonstration · fictional applicant
Innowwide Market Feasibility Project assessment
A native Innowwide example treating the application and mandatory workplan as one six-month, one-country market-entry experiment.
Independent pre-submission simulation
COLDCHAIN AI · Market-entry feasibility review
Assessment of the country hypothesis, local subcontractor, evidence-generating activities, workplan, costs and month-six decision.
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, application–workplan reconciliation, findings, evidence tracing and proposal-specific corrections. COLDCHAIN AI, its subcontractor and every figure are fictional. Live-call eligibility, country restrictions and platform confirmations must always be checked before submission.
Native scorecard and independent thresholds
Excellence · threshold 1821 / 30 · passes
The local uncertainty is credible, but the comparison is not buyer-specific.
Impact · threshold 2422 / 40 · fails
The market-entry decision lacks measurable commercial thresholds.
Implementation · threshold 1819 / 30 · passes
The partner is relevant, but the activity–budget chain contains mismatches.
Threshold readiness: Not ready in the current version because Impact is below 24/40. The 62/100 total does not compensate for a failed criterion.
Competitive positioning: Weak-to-moderate. The proposal could pass thresholds after repair but still needs a sharper reason why this evidence plan should rank above other feasible market-entry studies.
Eligibility and administrative preflight
| Signal | Evidence in dossier | Assessment |
|---|
| One target country / six months | Kenya; M1–M6 in application and workplan. | Clear |
| Exact independent local subcontractor | KenCold Research Ltd named with activities and budget. | Present |
| Invitation and commitment/declaration | Email acceptance mentioned; platform declaration not evidenced. | Confirm before submission |
| Eligible cost / fixed-grant logic | €87,400 total cost; €60,000 grant; SME share stated. | Cash bridge needs evidence |
| Ethics self-assessment | “No issues” stated in narrative; form completion not evidenced. | Complete every mandatory field |
| Target-country eligibility | Assumed from geography. | Verify against live call and restrictions |
Market-entry experiment map
| Hypothesis / uncertainty | Activity | Evidence | Decision threshold |
|---|
| Small exporters will pay for predictive spoilage alerts. | 20 buyer interviews and willingness-to-pay test. | Interview log and price-response table. | No minimum paid-intent threshold stated |
| The model transfers to intermittent-connectivity conditions. | Three-site technical pilot. | Prediction error and uptime dataset. | Error ≤8%; uptime ≥95% |
| Data processing can meet local requirements. | Legal/regulatory assessment. | Compliance route and data-flow map. | “Acceptable risk” is not defined |
| A local service channel can support deployments. | Partner/channel workshops. | Partner shortlist. | No capability or commercial acceptance gate |
Four-way outcome: The dossier mentions “go/no-go” but does not define the intermediate outcomes adapt and continue or further R&D. As written, valuable partial evidence could not be translated into a disciplined investment decision.
Highest-priority findings and repairs
Threshold-criticalImpact · Market access
The final market-entry decision has no commercial evidence threshold
- Locations
- Application Impact 3; workplan Activities 2 and 5; Outcome table
- Evidence
- The proposal promises a go/no-go decision after interviews and workshops. It does not state the minimum number of qualified buyers, paid-pilot intent, acceptable acquisition cost or channel commitment required to enter.
- Score effect
- The evaluator cannot judge whether the activities lead to an evidence-based route into the market or merely generate a report.
- Correction
- Define enter, adapt, further-R&D and no-entry thresholds. Connect every commercial activity to one measured output and one decision consequence.
- Re-review test
- A month-six decision can be made mechanically from the stated technical, commercial, regulatory and channel evidence.
Model-answer pattern: “Enter if [N] qualified buyers include [N] paid-pilot commitments at €[price], technical error is ≤[X], and [regulatory condition] is met. Adapt if [condition]; further R&D if [condition]; do not enter if [condition].”
High priorityImplementation · Consistency
The application, workplan and budget describe different partner workloads
- Locations
- Application Activity 3; workplan WP2; budget lines 7–10
- Evidence
- The application assigns field recruitment and pilot operation to KenCold. WP2 assigns recruitment to the SME, and the budget contains subcontractor cost only for legal analysis and workshops.
- Score effect
- The exact subcontractor contribution, activity ownership and cost logic cannot all be true at once.
- Correction
- Create one master activity register with identical activity name, dates, owner, output and cost; copy it into the application, workplan/Gantt and budget.
- Re-review test
- Every selected activity has one owner, one evidence output and one traceable cost in all documents.
Criterion-moving gapExcellence · Competitive advantage
“40% better” is not tied to a named comparator or buyer result
- Location
- Application Excellence 2
- Evidence
- The applicant claims 40% higher prediction accuracy than “existing tools” without naming a product, baseline dataset, test conditions or operational consequence for a Kenyan exporter.
- Correction
- Compare named alternatives and the current manual workaround on a common dataset and translate the result into spoilage, inspection time or margin relevance for the target buyer.
- Re-review test
- The advantage contains comparator, metric, source, conditions and buyer value.
Application–workplan–budget consistency audit
| Activity | Application | Workplan | Budget | Verdict |
|---|
| Buyer discovery | M1–M2 · KenCold | M1–M2 · SME | SME labour only | Broken owner |
| Technical pilot | M2–M5 · joint | M3–M5 · joint | Both parties | Start date mismatch |
| Regulatory analysis | M1–M3 · KenCold | M1–M3 · KenCold | Subcontractor | Coherent |
| Decision workshop | M6 · joint | M6 · joint | Travel + labour | Coherent; add decision gates |
Three strengths
- A credible one-country technical and commercial uncertainty.
- A named local subcontractor with relevant cold-chain access.
- A bounded six-month technical pilot with measurable performance thresholds.
Revision order
- Define the complete four-way market-entry decision and commercial gates.
- Reconcile the activity register, workplan, Gantt, owners and budget.
- Evidence the comparator and buyer-level value.
- Close platform declaration, ethics, target-country and cash-bridge confirmations.
Review your Innowwide dossier
Upload the application and mandatory workplan together so the evidence, activities, owners, dates and costs can be reconciled.
Get my free score preview →