If you are preparing an EIC Accelerator proposal, there is one section that can quietly weaken an otherwise strong application:

Your team section.

Not because your people lack talent.
Not because your technology is not ambitious.

But because ownership is unclear.

In real Evaluation Summary Reports, the wording is often restrained but decisive:

• “The team description is insufficient.”
• “Technical capability not convincingly demonstrated.”
• “Responsibilities are unclear.”
• “Missing competencies not well defined.”

Behind these phrases sits one core concern:

Evaluators cannot clearly see who is accountable for delivering the breakthrough.

And when accountability is invisible, perceived risk increases.

EIC Funds Execution Under Risk – Not Just Innovation

At EIC level, innovation is assumed to be ambitious. That is the entry ticket.

The real question evaluators ask is different:

Can this specific team move the innovation from today’s TRL to market reality?

The EIC is designed to support high-risk, high-impact projects. But that does not mean execution risk is tolerated casually. It is examined carefully.

Consciously or not, evaluators test your proposal against three structural checks:

1. Who owns the critical technical development?
2. Who owns commercialization and market entry?
3. Who owns regulatory, IP, and operational risk?

If the answers are vague, collective, or future-oriented, your perceived risk profile rises immediately.

The Silent Phrases That Undermine Credibility

Certain formulations repeatedly correlate with weaker outcomes:

• “The team will develop…”
• “We plan to hire…”
• “Advisors will support…”
• “External experts will assist…”

These statements are not inherently wrong. But when they replace named ownership, they break the execution chain.

From an evaluator’s perspective, the internal reaction becomes:

This may be an interesting project, but I cannot clearly see who will make it happen.

If your innovation depends on advanced AI modelling, but no one is clearly accountable for algorithm design and validation, that raises doubt.

If regulatory approval is central, but there is no defined regulatory lead with proven experience, that raises doubt.

If commercialization is critical to impact, but market ownership sits inside a generic “business team” description, that raises doubt.

Doubt increases perceived risk.
Perceived risk lowers funding probability.

A Simple Internal Test Before Submission

Before you submit, apply this discipline.

For every critical work package, answer clearly:

• Who is accountable by name?
• What exactly do they own?
• Why are they uniquely credible to own it?

If you cannot express that in one short, precise paragraph per function, your team section is not evaluator-ready.

This does not require a large organization. It requires a coherent path from today’s team to delivery.

Where Ownership Clarity Matters Most

1. Pre-Application Stage

Many founders underestimate structural gaps. If your innovation requires competencies you do not yet have, that is not fatal. But ignoring the gap is. A credible proposal acknowledges what is missing and explains how and when it will be filled.

2. Full Proposal Writing

Here, ownership must be explicitly mapped to:

• Work packages
• Milestones
• Budget allocation
• Risk mitigation

When people, tasks, and risks align logically, evaluators see control. When they do not, credibility erodes.

3. Interview Stage

If you are invited to interview, panel members will test your execution structure directly.

They look for:

• Clear role boundaries
• Visible technical leadership
• Consistent answers across team members
• No ambiguity about decision rights

If the written proposal and live explanations diverge, trust declines quickly.

Why Even Strong Founders Get Penalized

Deep-tech founders often have exceptional technical capability. But proposals are not scored on intelligence. They are scored on execution clarity under uncertainty.

The implicit evaluator question is simple:

If we allocate public capital here, can this team realistically deliver?