If your EIC proposal repeatedly uses the word innovative, but never precisely defines what is new, you are creating a serious risk.

One of the most consistent negative patterns in Evaluation Summary Reports is this:

“The breakthrough character is not sufficiently demonstrated.”

Or more directly:

“The innovation appears incremental.”

This is rarely about effort.

It is about proof.

The Core Problem: Novelty Claimed, Not Demonstrated

Many founders genuinely believe their solution is groundbreaking.

But belief is not evidence.

Evaluators are trained to distinguish between:

• Marketing-level differentiation
• Technical advancement within an existing paradigm
• True step-change beyond the state of the art

If your proposal says:

• “First of its kind”
• “Unique technology”
• “Highly innovative solution”
• “Disruptive platform”

Without clearly defining compared to what, the claim collapses.

Innovation is not assessed in isolation.

It is assessed against the current best available solution.

What Evaluators Actually Test

When reading your Excellence section, evaluators silently run a comparator test:

1. What is the current state of the art?
2. What are its measurable limitations?
3. What exactly is different in your approach?
4. Why does that difference matter technically or economically?

If any of those four elements are weak or missing, the proposal drifts toward incremental classification.

Incremental does not mean “bad.”

It means not aligned with the EIC mandate.

The EIC is explicitly designed for breakthrough, high-impact innovation — not optimization of existing systems.

The Most Common Mistake: Improvement Framed as Disruption

There is a pattern that frequently triggers downgrades:

A proposal presents performance improvement within an existing architecture but labels it disruptive.

For example:

• 10% efficiency gain
• Faster processing within the same algorithmic logic
• Lower cost using standard hardware
• Incremental accuracy improvements

These may be commercially valuable.

But unless they are tied to a structural shift — a new mechanism, new architecture, or removal of a systemic constraint — they do not qualify as breakthrough.

Breakthrough character requires one of the following:

• A new technical principle
• A new system architecture
• A new combination that changes functional boundaries
• A capability previously considered impossible or unviable

Without that, evaluators see optimization, not transformation.

The Comparator Must Be Explicit

Many proposals assume the evaluator already understands the baseline.

That assumption is dangerous.

You must clearly state:

• What is currently considered best practice
• What its measurable limitations are
• Why those limitations are structurally embedded
• How your approach overcomes them

If you do not define the comparator, evaluators will define it for you.

And that rarely benefits the applicant.

The Practical Structure for Demonstrating Breakthrough

To avoid “breakthrough not proven” objections, your Excellence narrative should include:

1. State of the Art Definition

Not generic. Specific technologies, architectures, or methodologies currently used.

2. Structural Limitation

A precise explanation of what cannot be achieved within that paradigm and why.

3. Novel Mechanism

A clear explanation of what is technically different in your approach.

4. Quantified Impact

What becomes possible now that was previously impossible, unviable, or uneconomical.

Without these four elements, innovation remains descriptive.

With them, it becomes defensible.

Where Proposals Usually Fail

Breakthrough claims weaken most often in:

Technology Section

High-level claims. No meaningful architectural differentiation. No technical boundary shift.

IP Section

Patent listed, but no explanation of how it protects a paradigm shift rather than a feature.

Benchmarking

Performance compared to outdated solutions instead of current best practice.

Language

Heavy use of adjectives. Light use of mechanisms and measurable outcomes.

When language dominates logic, evaluators hesitate.

And hesitation reduces scores.

The Strategic Implication

An EIC proposal is not a branding exercise.

It is a technical argument.

Its goal is to convince experts that:

• The innovation moves beyond the current frontier
• The novelty is explicit and measurable
• The advantage is defensible
• The breakthrough character justifies public risk capital

If “what is new” is not precise, evaluators classify the proposal as non-breakthrough.

Not because it lacks merit.

But because it lacks proof.

A Final Diagnostic Question

If you removed every adjective from your proposal, would the breakthrough still be visible?

If the answer is no, you are relying on narrative.

If the answer is yes, you are relying on mechanism.

Mechanism convinces.

If you want to test whether your innovation is demonstrably beyond the state of the art — or simply positioned as such — contact us at contact@siliconcp.com