An ERC proposal needs a scientific idea large enough to justify the programme and a proposal precise enough for reviewers to understand, challenge and evaluate.
Arvacore supports researchers who already have, or are developing, a serious research direction and need an independent scientific-strategy view on how the idea is framed, structured and defended.
No consultancy can guarantee an ERC award. The final decision depends on scientific quality, evaluation and competition within the call. What can be improved before submission is the proposal's competitiveness: the clarity of the question, ambition, scientific logic, reviewer readability, figures, risk architecture, PI independence narrative and coherence between Part I and Part II.
Our role is to reduce avoidable weaknesses and increase the chance that a strong scientific idea is understood as intended during evaluation.
Start at the right stage
You do not need a finished draft before asking for help.
Blank-page / concept stage
Clarify the field-level problem, what is genuinely unknown, the central scientific question, proposition or hypothesis, decisive evidence and plausible outcomes.
Useful starting points:
Part I / B1 stage
Test whether the five-page scientific case makes the importance, originality, objectives, overall strategy and potential field-level consequence easy to understand.
Full-proposal stage
Review Part I and Part II together: scientific logic, methodology, team, risk, resources and consistency.
Step 2 / interview stage
Prepare to defend the scientific programme under direct questioning rather than relying on rehearsed marketing language.
Where Arvacore can help
Concept and ambition review
Clarify the central scientific question, the larger field-level vision, the hypothesis or intellectual proposition and the outcome space.
Part I / B1 review
Test whether the opening scientific case creates enough motivation to carry the proposal into Step 2: problem, question, ambition, objectives, strategy and figures.
Part II / B2 review
Review methodology, feasibility, work plan, scientific and execution risks, team architecture, resources and alternative routes.
Figures and scientific communication
Develop or critique conceptual figures that reduce cognitive load and make the scientific architecture visible without consuming scarce page space for decoration.
Scientific risk and optionality
Test whether the project contains genuine scientific uncertainty and whether different outcomes remain scientifically valuable.
CV, Track Record and independence
Review whether the proposal and PI narrative make the applicant's intellectual ownership, trajectory and readiness to lead the programme clear.
Interview preparation
Adversarial scientific rehearsal focused on the question, assumptions, methods, outcome space, team, budget and points a panel is likely to probe.
Final red-team review
Read the proposal as an evaluator would: where does the logic slow down, which claim lacks evidence, what is easy to misunderstand, and which section needs to become more decisive?
What Arvacore does not do
Arvacore does not promise an award, fabricate scientific ambition, invent evidence or replace the PI's intellectual authorship.
The PI remains the scientific author and owner of the programme. External support should sharpen the question, expose weaknesses, improve proposal architecture and help the scientific case survive independent scrutiny.
A practical engagement model
1. Fit check
Share the grant type, panel, proposal stage and central scientific question.
2. Focused diagnostic
Identify the highest-leverage problem: concept, ambition, B1, B2, risk, figures, CV/independence, or interview.
3. Scoped review
Work on the smallest useful unit rather than forcing a full-service engagement.
4. Final consistency pass
Check that the scientific story remains coherent across the proposal and supporting documents.
Full proposal engagements are custom-scoped because the amount of work depends heavily on draft maturity and scientific complexity.
Read the ERC methodology before deciding
Arvacore's ERC resource hub is public and explains the proposal philosophy in detail.
- ERC Starting Grant 2027 hub
- ERC Start Here
- Scientific strategy guide
- How to get an ERC Starting Grant
- Part I / B1 guide
- Part II / B2 guide
- Scientific risk guide
- Interview guide
Discuss an ERC proposal
If you are deciding whether an idea is ready for ERC, share the grant type, proposal stage and central scientific question. Arvacore will confirm the smallest useful next step before any paid work starts.