By Julien Sudre, grant writer and founder of Grant360 and Innotrope. Originally published 8 December 2025. Updated: 23 September 2026.
For many collaborative Horizon Europe calls, proposals first undergo admissibility and eligibility checks, then independent expert assessment against published criteria, followed by consensus and panel review. Proposals meeting the applicable thresholds are ranked under the work programme's rules, but funding also depends on the available budget. Applicants receive an Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) explaining the assessment. Procedures vary by programme part and call, so use the documents linked to your specific topic. European Commission: how projects are chosen for funding; Funding & Tenders evaluation workflow.
This guide draws on the author's experience writing more than a hundred grant applications. It explains the published process and its practical implications for drafting, rather than claiming access to private discussions among evaluators. For a broader writing guide, read Horizon Europe grant writing complete guide.
What happens before experts score a proposal?
The proposal is checked against the call's admissibility and eligibility conditions. These may include timely submission, required forms and attachments, page limits, eligible participants and the applicable consortium composition. A proposal that does not satisfy a mandatory condition may not proceed to scientific evaluation, irrespective of its idea. Consult the Horizon Europe 2026-2027 work programmes and General Annexes alongside the topic page, since exceptions and additional conditions may apply.
For example, a scientifically strong project cannot compensate for a missing compulsory document by explaining it in the narrative. Assign one person to check the call-specific conditions and another to verify the submission in the portal. The European Research Executive Agency's application guidance explains the basic application and evaluation steps.
Who reads the proposal and what do they assess?
Independent experts with relevant expertise assess eligible proposals against the published evaluation criteria. For standard Research and Innovation Actions (RIAs) and Innovation Actions (IAs), these are Excellence, Impact, and Quality and efficiency of implementation. The aspects examined under each criterion are set out in the applicable work programme and reflected in the Commission's RIA/IA evaluation form. Other actions may use different criteria, weights or procedures.
Experts record their assessment and reasoning in individual evaluation reports. The Funding & Tenders Online Manual on expert roles describes those duties. Do not assume that every evaluator reads pages in a particular order or makes a lasting judgment from the abstract: the public rules do not establish that behaviour.
Write so that evidence is easy to locate under the relevant criterion. If you claim that a method advances the state of the art, identify the comparator and the planned validation under Excellence. If you claim uptake, name users and adoption steps under Impact. If a pilot is central, allocate the partner effort and schedule under Implementation. Clear writing helps the reader find these links; it does not earn points independently of the substance.
How are individual assessments turned into an ESR?
After individual assessment, experts discuss the proposal to reach a consensus on comments and scores. A panel review then checks consistency and equal treatment across proposals. The resulting ESR communicates the evaluation outcome and provides the applicant with the agreed assessment. The Commission's evaluation workflow describes these stages.
Consensus means the group agrees on an assessment; it does not mean that every expert initially formed the same opinion. Applicants do not see the full private discussion, so a comment in the ESR should be read as the agreed outcome, rather than as evidence of who argued for a particular score. Nor is there a published rule that an ambiguous sentence automatically produces a compromise score.
For drafting purposes, the useful question is whether a reviewer can verify each major assertion without inventing a missing step. For example, if the proposal promises a regulatory pathway, identify the applicable context, responsible partner, planned analysis and the point at which its findings affect the work plan. Ask an external reviewer to mark statements for which the supporting evidence is hard to find.
How are scores and thresholds applied?
Scores, thresholds and weights depend on the action and call. For standard single-stage RIAs and IAs, the general rules normally score the three criteria on a 0-5 scale and apply individual and overall thresholds; two-stage calls and other actions can differ. Rather than copying a number from another article, check the current General Annexes, the topic conditions and the evaluation form for your call. Horizon Europe work programmes and General Annexes; RIA/IA evaluation form.
Passing a threshold means the proposal meets the relevant minimum standard; it does not secure a grant. For example, two proposals can both exceed all thresholds while only one can be funded within a topic's budget. A good total score can also hide a weaker criterion that deserves attention before another submission.
How are proposals ranked when funding is limited?
Eligible, sufficiently scored proposals are placed in a ranked selection process governed by the applicable work programme. The budget determines how far funding can extend down the list. Priority rules can matter for proposals with equal scores, but they are more detailed than a universal formula such as "Impact, then Excellence, then gender balance, then geography." Check the ex-aequo provisions and any topic-specific derogations in the current Horizon Europe General Annexes.
This distinction matters when interpreting an unfunded proposal. An ESR showing scores above the thresholds does not necessarily identify a flaw that caused the rejection; the funding boundary may have fallen above it. Conversely, if a criterion received weaker comments, those comments can still guide a better next submission. REA: how to apply and how proposals are selected.
What can you learn from the ESR after a rejection?
Read the ESR in three passes: first identify the procedural outcome and scores; then group the specific strengths and weaknesses by criterion; finally trace each actionable comment back to the proposal's objectives, methods, impact pathway, partners or resources. An ESR reports the assessment of that submitted version under that call. It is not a complete diagnosis of every possible project design.
If the report questions the credibility of expected uptake, changing an adjective will rarely solve the underlying problem. You may need a better-defined user group, a pilot that tests adoption barriers, stronger commitments, a revised exploitation plan and matching effort in the work packages. Record each comment, the suspected root cause, the planned revision and where the revised proposal will demonstrate the change.
If you plan to resubmit to a different topic, reassess topic fit before transferring the text. See also Why do Horizon Europe proposals fail, and how can you improve yours?.
How should the evaluation process shape your writing?
Use the official criteria and application template as a review framework. Put answers where assessors expect them, define specialist terms, use consistent objectives and figures, and connect claims to evidence. A diagram is worthwhile when it makes a dependency or impact pathway easier to verify; presentation alone cannot repair an unsupported methodology or unrealistic plan.
Before submission, invite someone outside the drafting team to find the evidence for one objective, one claimed expected outcome and one major budget item. If they cannot trace each claim across the sections, fix the project logic or signposting. The Commission's RIA/IA application form and evaluation form offer a useful pair of documents for that review.
Conclusion: What is the key lesson about Horizon Europe evaluation?
Horizon Europe uses published conditions and criteria, independent expertise, consensus and consistency checks to select proposals within a limited budget. Applicants can prepare for this process by meeting every formal requirement and making their scientific case, expected contribution and delivery plan demonstrable under the applicable criteria. The ESR can then help distinguish weaknesses to address from the effects of competition for funding. Consult the current call documents for the rules that govern your proposal.