recent posts

Tags cloud

AI in grant writing breakthrough innovation deep tech funding EIC Accelerator EIC evaluation EIC evaluation criteria EIC evaluation patterns EIC funding credibility EIC jury insights EIC proposal EIC proposal writing EU innovation funding EU innovation grants EU public funding execution credibility execution risk execution risk in innovation funding funding probability funding risk assessment funding strategy 2026 grant application mistakes grant writing mistakes grant writing strategy high-risk high-impact innovation Horizon Europe innovation accountability innovation strategy innovation validation LLM misuse paradigm shift innovation proposal clarity proposal credibility proposal evaluation criteria proposal risk signals proposal strategy public funding strategy startup funding Europe state of the art state of the art comparison structural market failure team ownership mapping technology benchmarking technology commercialization unmet need value proposition
the cost of vagueness in eic proposal

When Evaluators Cannot Assess Anything: The Cost of Vagueness in an EIC Proposal

By |Published On: February 28th, 2026|

If your EIC Accelerator proposal feels “strategic,” “visionary,” and “high-level,” you may already be weakening your own case.

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

“Insufficient information to assess credibility and feasibility.”

That sentence does not mean the idea is weak. It means the evaluator could not judge it.

And if they cannot judge it, they cannot justify a strong score.

Vagueness Is Interpreted as Risk

Many founders assume that broad language signals ambition.

In reality, broad language signals uncertainty. Evaluators are not looking for inspiration.

They are looking for evidence they can assess.

When they read:

  • “We will revolutionize the industry.”
  • “The technology is highly scalable.”
  • “The market opportunity is significant.”
  • “The team is experienced and capable.”

Their internal reaction is not excitement.

It is: Based on what?

If you do not provide enough specificity to evaluate feasibility, evaluators default to caution.

And caution reduces your score.

What Really Happens During Evaluation

When a proposal remains abstract — avoids numbers, avoids constraints, avoids trade-offs, avoids naming concrete mechanisms — the evaluator does not think:

“This is promising.”

They think:

“I cannot assess whether this is real.”

At that point, the proposal is no longer competing on excellence.

It is failing on evaluability.

And within the EIC framework, if something cannot be evaluated, it cannot be funded.

The Logic Behind the Objection

The reasoning chain is simple:

  • The EIC supports high-risk innovation.
  • High risk must be counterbalanced by credible execution.
  • Credibility requires specifics.
  • Specifics allow feasibility to be judged.
  • If feasibility cannot be judged, risk dominates the assessment.

Vagueness removes the evaluator’s ability to measure.

Without measurable elements, they cannot defend a positive score in front of other panel members.

This is why phrases such as:

  • “Cutting-edge AI platform”
  • “Robust commercialization strategy”
  • “Strong regulatory pathway”

Mean nothing without:

  1. A meaningful architecture explanation
  2. Concrete milestones and timelines
  3. Named standards, certifications, or regulatory pathways
  4. Quantified KPIs
  5. Clearly defined initial customer segments

Evaluators are trained to detect when language replaces substance.

A Practical Stress Test Before You Submit

Before submission, review your proposal section by section and ask:

Can an external expert answer these questions without guessing?

  • What exactly is being built or validated?
  • How does it technically work at a meaningful level?
  • What will be achieved by Month X?
  • What metric proves success?
  • What is the current limitation?
  • What is the credible path to overcome it?

If the evaluator must “fill in the blanks,” your proposal is too abstract.

Clarity does not reduce ambition.

It increases trust.

Where Vagueness Commonly Appears

1. Technology Description

Broad claims. No architecture detail. No validation data. No comparison to current best practice.

2. Market Section

Large TAM figures. No defined initial segment. No adoption barrier analysis. No willingness-to-pay logic.

3. Implementation Plan

Generic work packages. Unclear deliverables. Milestones without measurable outputs.

4. Team Section

“Experienced team” without mapping individuals to specific technical, commercial, or regulatory responsibilities.

In each case, the underlying issue is the same:

The evaluator cannot assess credibility.

The Strategic Implication

An EIC proposal is not a pitch deck.

It is an evidence document.

Its purpose is to allow a panel of experts to conclude:

“This is ambitious.

This is risky.

But it is concrete, structured, and feasible.”

If they cannot reach that conclusion because the proposal remains abstract, the outcome becomes predictable.

Not because the idea lacked merit.

But because it could not be evaluated.

If you want a clear view on whether your proposal is specific enough to be assessable at EIC level, book a meeting with us: https://calendly.com/siliconcapital/30-min-presentation

Share This Post: