# Horizon Europe proposal checklist

Arvacore — arvacore.com — contact@arvacore.com
Use this list from first topic reading to submission. Tick items as evidence exists, not as intentions.

## 1. Call fit
- [ ] The topic text is read in full, including expected outcomes, scope, and specific conditions.
- [ ] Every expected outcome in the topic is addressed explicitly in the proposal.
- [ ] The action type (RIA / IA / CSA) matches the maturity of the work.
- [ ] Eligibility and minimum consortium conditions are verified against the call conditions.
- [ ] The indicative budget per project is consistent with the planned effort.

## 2. Concept and Excellence
- [ ] Objectives are specific, measurable, and mapped to work packages.
- [ ] The state of the art names competing approaches and explains their limits.
- [ ] The novelty claim is supported by preliminary evidence.
- [ ] Methodological choices are justified, with alternatives ruled out on stated grounds.
- [ ] Open science practices and, where relevant, the gender dimension are addressed.
- [ ] Starting TRL and target TRL are stated and credible.

## 3. Impact
- [ ] A pathway links results to outcomes to wider impacts, with named beneficiaries.
- [ ] Each target has a baseline, a measurement method, and a timeframe.
- [ ] Barriers to uptake (regulatory, cost, procurement, standards) are named with a response.
- [ ] Key exploitable results are listed with owner, route to market, and IP arrangements.
- [ ] Dissemination, exploitation, and communication are distinguished, each with audiences and channels.
- [ ] Letters of support or associated partners back the uptake claims.

## 4. Implementation
- [ ] Work package structure has clear dependencies and no orphan tasks.
- [ ] Milestones are decision points; deliverables are outputs. They are not the same list.
- [ ] The Gantt chart matches the narrative and the effort tables.
- [ ] Risks have likelihood, impact, a specific mitigation, and an owner.
- [ ] Every partner has a substantive role and proportionate effort.
- [ ] Management structure, decision rules, and conflict resolution are described.
- [ ] Data management, ethics, and security requirements are covered.

## 5. Consortium
- [ ] Each partner's competence is evidenced, not asserted.
- [ ] Geographic and sector balance follows from the work, not the other way round.
- [ ] Third parties, subcontracting, and in-kind contributions are declared correctly.
- [ ] Consortium agreement discussions have started before submission.

## 6. Budget
- [ ] Personnel effort per partner is realistic against the tasks.
- [ ] Travel, equipment, and other direct costs are itemised and justified.
- [ ] Funding rates per entity type are applied correctly.
- [ ] Budget totals in the narrative, tables, and portal form match exactly.

## 7. Submission hygiene
- [ ] Page limits respected; nothing essential lives only in an annex.
- [ ] Cross-references, acronyms, and figure numbering are consistent.
- [ ] An outside reader can explain the project after two pages.
- [ ] Administrative forms completed by all partners with PIC numbers validated.
- [ ] A complete version is uploaded at least 48 hours before the deadline.
- [ ] A final consistency pass is done in the last week — no new content.

Need a second pair of eyes before submission? contact@arvacore.com