0
Qualify
Go or no-go, in writing
Base success rate, fit against the current evaluation criteria, whether the topic returns next year, national co-funding for your preparation, a written go/no-go.
When T−6 months
Innovation · Proposal engineering
Proposalsthat holdtogether.
Proposal engineering for collaborative research. The argument, the consortium, the budget, the evidence and the documents, built as one system — from the call text to the submit button.
Latest build
Cluster 2 lump-sum RIA, submitted 2026
Why proposals fail
Most proposals are not lost on the quality of their ideas. They are lost on the machinery around the text.
- InstitutionA coordinator institution that commits too late.
- BudgetA partner who misreads the budget.
- Work planA work plan that does not match how the funder pays.
- DocumentA document that breaks under twenty collaborators.
- Page limitA page limit met by cutting the wrong things.
- PortalA portal filled in the last night.
Competition has sharpened. Horizon Europe success rates fell to about 12–14 % overall, and Cluster 2 single-stage calls to about 7 % in 2025 (Science|Business analysis of Commission data). At those rates, every avoidable weakness is disqualifying.
The method
Nine stages,four systems.
T is the call deadline. Four systems run through every stage: document control, visibility, AI discipline and programme control.
1
Decode the call
Verbatim, then mapped
Verbatim capture checked across page breaks; every research question mapped to an objective, section and instrument; the template’s hard rules; a post-mortem of past winners; a map of related projects.
When T−5 → T−4 months · re-verified at T−90/60/30
“Verbatim first. We capture the call word for word and trace every rule, quote and figure to its primary source.”
One of seven principles
2
Architect the consortium
Roles that survive stress
Partner qualification gates, graded roles (beneficiary, associated partner, advisory board), institutional roles, governance clauses that survive stress, an Advisory Board recruited by function.
When T−5 → T−2 months
3
Design the evidence and work plan
Built the way the work runs
Work packages derived from how the work actually runs, a payment profile per reporting period, a solidity matrix, a quality gate per evidence strand, a naming system, an ethics and data regime.
When T−4 months → freeze at T−45 days
4
Build the budget
Recomputed, independently
An effort model per partner and work package, unit-cost build-ups using public price indices, partner-budget intake with error flags, proportionality tests, a cash-flow check per partner, an independent recompute.
When T−60 → lock at T−14
“Assert, don’t assume. Every scripted change states what it expects and stops if reality differs. Every total is recomputed.”
One of seven principles
5
Write and engineer the Part B
Layout first, words last
Drafting inside the official template, impact written for the current rules, page-limit engineering, figures generated from the proposal’s own tables, a verified and linked reference system, a compliance audit.
When T−90 → freeze at T−7
6
Run the consortium
A written decision trail
Partner kits, one-pagers, a living requests register, a secretariat across every channel, meeting briefs, a written decision trail.
When Continuous
7
Submit
Full upload at T−5
Portal entry from a single execution map (the portal follows the Part B), budget justifications, ethics pages, a consistency check, full upload at T−5, a checked PDF.
When T−10 → T
“Keep a contingency line. Any partner not signed off a month before the deadline gets a version of the proposal built without them.”
One of seven principles
8
After submission
Ready for the result
Public status, a visual summary, a publication plan, a lessons note, grant-preparation readiness.
When T+1 → result
Start here
Starthere
Three fixed-scope readings: of the topic, of a rejected proposal, or of your full draft as an evaluator reads it. Each quote states the success rate for your call.
- Fit diagnosticGo/no-go memo with a quote; credited if you continue€950
- Rejected-proposal diagnosticBlind score, comparison with your evaluation report, the structural weakness, a do/don’t list€3,500–5,500
- Red-team reviewTemplate compliance, page budget, fatal items, consortium balance, impact under the current rules€2,900
Full builds
Fullbuild
All nine stages, from qualification to submission, with two red-team rounds. Fixed scope, milestone payments, no success-only fees.
- Coordinator build: RIA/IA (lump sum)10–14 weeks, paid 30/40/30€28,000–45,000
- Coordinator build: CSAThe same method, lighter scope, 8–12 weeks€18,000–28,000
- Researcher-owned beneficiary set-upLegal route, entity registration, business plan, role architecture and budget line€3,000–5,000
ModulesPick what the proposal needs
Eight fixed-scope modules, each a stage of the method that can be bought on its own: for a coordinator with a team in place, or a partner who only needs their own sections done right.
Your organisation’s sections, budget line, one-pager and portal inputs.
Partner package€4,500–6,500
Effort model per partner and work package, unit-cost build-ups, partner-budget checks, payment profile and cash flow, written justifications.
Lump-sum budget model and audit€3,500–6,000
Partner qualification, roles, governance clauses, partner kits and one-pagers, a requests register.
Consortium architecture€5,000–9,500
Seats defined by function, tailored invitations, verified delivery, written acceptances.
Advisory Board recruitment€2,500–4,000
Tiered literature review, verified reference registry, reproducible gap analysis, state-of-the-art text, citation audit.
Evidence architecture€4,000–8,000
Portal entry with you from one execution map, budget comments, Part A–Part B consistency, a checked PDF with working links, full upload five days before the deadline.
Submission desk (final fortnight)€4,000–6,500
A complete alternative proposal without an at-risk partner, ready to activate.
Contingency version€2,500–4,500
A consortium site that stays in sync with the proposal, partner pages, status after submission, a visual summary.
Project website€6,000–14,000
Case · Cluster 2 lump-sum RIA · 2026
45 of 45 pages.No blocking errors.
Fewer than ten beneficiaries in several EU and associated countries, four years, about €4 M requested, about 500 person-months, ten work packages. The project name is withheld pending partner consent.
Lump-sum payment profile · value released per reporting period
The original work plan. Nothing paid in the middle period — a design error under lump-sum funding, where the work package is the payment unit.
After redesign
- Part B45 of 45 pages; about 1,400 internal links; every reference checked and linked to its source, with remaining date discrepancies logged.
- ConsortiumRebuilt from about fifteen candidate organisations to a tight core. A partner withdrew in the final week; the contingency version built in parallel became the submitted proposal.
- PagesBrought from 57 to 44 pages in one reviewed pass, then held at 45/45. The final page came from table layout, not from prose.
- BudgetPartner submissions arrived on three wrong templates. Consolidated in the funder’s model with a unit-cost build-up and 67 written budget justifications.
- SubmissionSubmitted with no blocking errors, after several improving uploads — the lesson that fixed our full-upload date at T−5. Evaluation results are expected in early 2027.
The same lead author’s previous attempt, in 2025, was a finished proposal that was never uploaded. Most of our rules come from the difference between the two.
Formats · commissioned as packages
Research youcan walk into.
Two field-tested formats from the founder’s research, offered to foundations, parties, universities and consortia. Both belong to one approach, embodied–experiential translation: results are turned into situations people go through, not only documents they read.
SMP
Science-Meets-Politics
A designed encounter between researchers and decision-makers around evidence still in progress, with a recorded restitution. Run since 2022 in Kenya, the DR Congo and Rwanda: science talks, a political panel and questions from the public, streamed live.
- DesignThe question, the evidence in progress, the speakers and the panel.
- EncounterAn evening or a one-day conference, moderated.
- RestitutionA recorded restitution that the evidence can be traced back to.
Quote on requestAsk about SMP
GRBC
Gender Reversed Bootcamp
An experiential training format that reverses gendered role assignments to make competence barriers observable. First run for a week in Madagascar in August 2022: a simulation whose rules were translated from national survey data, set in a society where the roles were reversed.
- DesignA scenario built from the country’s own statistics.
- BootcampThe immersion itself, with local partners.
- EvidenceWhat the reversal made visible, written up. The 2022 cohort was followed up four years on.
Published as Somatic Politics (ENoP, 2026) and as a 2022 working paper.
Quote on requestAsk about GRBC
Horizon Watch · checked 28 Sep 2026
The calendarand the politics.
Horizon Europe’s calls and deadlines, the evaluation windows, and the negotiation of its successor, FP10. Every entry links to its source: the Work Programme, the Council, the Commission.
Policy · FP10
The Commission proposes FP10: Horizon Europe 2028–2034
Presented with the 2028–2034 long-term budget, the proposal earmarks €175 billion for the next framework programme, close to double the current programme's initial €95.5 billion, and keeps it a stand-alone programme tied more closely to the new European Competitiveness Fund.
Source: Science|Business · ERA-LEARN
Calendar
Work Programme 2026–2027 adopted
The last two years of Horizon Europe. Cluster 2, Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society, is Part 5 of the programme.
Source: HaDEA · WP 2026–2027, Cluster 2 (PDF)
Policy · Parliament
Parliament's draft reports on FP10
The ITRE rapporteur Christian Ehler and co-rapporteur René Repasi publish their draft reports on the Horizon Europe 2028–2034 regulation and specific programme.
Source: ERA-LEARN
Policy · Council
The Council agrees its partial position on FP10
Member States agree a partial negotiating mandate on the regulation and the specific programme. Financial and horizontal questions stay inside the wider negotiation on the long-term budget.
Source: Council of the EU
Calendar · Cluster 2
Cluster 2 call 2026-01 closes
Single-stage call ‘Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society 2026’, 17:00 Brussels time.
Source: WP 2026–2027, Cluster 2 (PDF)
expected
Policy · Parliament
ITRE committee vote on the FP10 reports
Scheduled for September 2026, followed by a plenary vote; negotiations between Parliament and Council can start once Parliament has its position.
Source: Horizon Europe Portal (CZ)
Calendar · Cluster 2
Partnership call closes: HORIZON-CL2-2026-02-TRANSFO-01
Co-funded European Partnership for Social Transformations and Resilience (COFUND): €60 million, one project. The partnership will fund research on the future of work, social protection and essential services, education and skills development, and a fair transition.
Source: WP 2026–2027, Cluster 2 (PDF)
expected
Results · Cluster 2
Outcomes of the 2026-01 evaluation due
Standard timing: applicants hear around five months after the deadline; grant agreements are signed around eight months after it, so late May 2027.
expected
Calendar · Cluster 2
Two-stage call 2027-02 opens
First-stage deadline 4 May 2027; second stage 30 September 2027.
Source: WP 2026–2027, Cluster 2 (PDF)
expected
Calendar · Cluster 2
Single-stage call 2027-01 opens
Deadline 23 September 2027. The Director-General may open a call up to a month earlier or later, and delay a deadline by up to two months.
Source: WP 2026–2027, Cluster 2 (PDF)
After submission
The workcontinues.
- Post-award supportProject management support, dissemination and exploitation, website, reporting. The coordinator’s own legal tasks are not included.€950 / day
- PI visibility trackPerspective paper, dataset DOI, preprint, journal submission€4,000–7,000 / paper
- Training“Lump-sum proposals that pay”, “Engineering a Part B”, “Impact under the 2026–27 rules”15–35 kSEK / day
Deadline weeks are billed at €1,150 per day.
Terms in brief
- Fixed scope, milestone payments. Changes after the agreed architecture freeze are billed at the day rate.
- No success-only fees. An optional success bonus can be added to a full build (1 % of your own EU share, capped at €15,000). It is invoiced to you and never written into the EU budget, because preparation costs are not eligible.
- You own the proposal. Inkoation keeps its tools and templates.
- AI is declared. Every delivery includes an AI-use statement and a citation-verification log, and personal data is processed only on local or EU-resident models.
- An NDA is standard. Nothing is reused across clients.
- No guarantee of funding. Every quote states the base success rate for your call.
Who we are
A researchcompany, ledby a researcher.
Inkoation Research Sweden AB (trading as G·inkoation) is a Stockholm-based research company. It is led by a researcher with a PhD in information and communication sciences, a career in EU research policy and programme management, and published, field-tested methods for collecting and translating evidence: narrative circles, science-meets-politics formats, bootcamps.
We work in English, French and Italian, with working Swedish. The method comes from building a large Horizon Europe proposal under real pressure, and from keeping an unusually detailed record of what went wrong and how it was fixed: nearly 600 lesson records, condensed into 96 operating rules.