The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €10 million in equity financing per project (€12.5 million total) and is designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants.

This article is part of a series that contains suggestions for the EIC and the EIC Board regarding various improvements to the evaluation process (see ChatEIC).

AI evaluations: It’s best to start early

It is best to start developing a process now since there will need to be an experimentation phase. It is better to have it fully developed when needed than to be forced to integrate it on short notice in case submissions keep rising due to AI. Many applicants already use AI instead of completing the template themselves (i.e., letting ChatGPT fill it out), and consultancies are actively considering how AI can be used to speed up the EIC Accelerator process. It is only a matter of time before proposal writing becomes fully automated.

Experimentation

Several approaches have been outlined (see Part 1, 2, 3, 4), but an experimentation period is necessary to determine what works best. One possible approach is to use multiple AIs per criterion and employ multiple extraction steps before scoring. All past proposals and approvals can be used for training as well. Criteria should also be revised to give weight to what the jury cares most about so that the AI knows the real-life priorities.

Why AI is needed

The EIC has been increasing Jury numbers over the last few years. With the success rate for the interviews dropping, this suggests it is not the ideal scenario. The most important KPI for the evaluation process as a whole is the interview success rate, as it shows how many of the unwanted projects slipped through Steps 1 and 2. The higher the interview success rate, the better the evaluation process is at filtering. Since success rates keep falling for every cutoff (from 50% in 2021 to 16% in 2025), the evaluation process needs to improve.

Setup

It is recommended to use a European company that runs an open-source Large Language Model (LLM) locally. Sending all Intellectual Property (IP) to the US/China would not be ideal (even if confidential), but Europe does not have many LLMs to choose from. Taking the best open-source LLM(s) on the market and then running them securely on EU servers is the ideal approach. Then, one can use a simple setup for the AI system that separates the backend/UI and the instructions themselves.

For instance, ChatEIC was created for proposal writing using a similar approach. All the "magic" is saved in the instructions as plain text. To change the output, the individual instructions are simply changed. Using the same approach, feedback can also be quickly integrated into the system, and different types of evaluation instructions can even be run in parallel to test them. The benefit is that the EIC and EIC Board can retain control over the evaluation while the contractor is exchangeable since they only take care of integration and version control.

The software backend (not the proposals or data) can even use version control via GitHub or similar (but still a private repository), since the software itself is not that sensitive, making it very easy to change providers if needed. This approach can entirely avoid the problem and dependency that occurred with the old AI platform.

Benefits

Infinite evaluators can evaluate instantly. Instead of having 3-4 evaluators work for 2 months, an AI system can cycle through dozens of repeat evaluations to perfect the outcome. Feedback from the board and jury can be used to noticeably refine the Step 1 and 2 filtering. The goal is to increase the Step 3 success rate (the most important KPI) while decreasing the Step 1 (and 2) rate(s).

There is also a perfect record of evaluation decisions. As a result, any “poor” project that ended up in the interview can be traced through Step 1 and 2 to improve the instructions. Any great project that ended up winning but was previously rejected can likewise improve the instructions to make sure such a project is not rejected again.

Integration

Only when the process demonstrates higher quality than the human evaluators should it be integrated. If the results are promising and create impressive outcomes, some top AI picks that were rejected by the human evaluators could also be invited to see if the Jury likes them (as early testing).

Long term

There are many possibilities. Once the process works well and is either a part of or becomes the main evaluation system, the AI can be extended to engage applicants. If information is missing or unclear, it can auto-send questions to applicants to which they can add additional clarification (i.e., a real-time information exchange). The template can also be replaced by a very short cheat sheet (i.e., condensed information) followed by pure AI Q&A. Experience in creating AI writers and writing proposals suggests that a large part of proposals consists of unnecessary content ('bloat'). This could be streamlined.

Feasibility

No major roadblocks are foreseen in the integration. The context window should be able to handle 100+ page proposals well (ChatEIC already demonstrates this capability). Image recognition could be discussed more, including where and if it is necessary. Connecting the AI to patent databases and allowing web searches would also be useful, mostly for market, competitors, science, and IP analysis.

It could also be possible to use a hybrid approach where evaluators use the AI outputs as a dashboard that points them to the pros and cons of the project. Then the AI could act like the initial 3 evaluators, and the human evaluator could be the 4th who makes the final decision. An AI system is believed to have the potential to improve filtering, enhance interview success rates, and, most importantly, increase the quality of winners. Also, the EIC can make the shift from mostly grading proposals like essays to becoming more of a scout that finds the best companies.

Currently, applicants have to learn about the EIC and what it wants, but in the future, the EIC might have a system where no learning is required. The EIC could then select from all European companies, not only the ones that decide to take the time to learn about the EIC first. As long as the EIC and companies are aligned, removing the learning barrier would remove friction in connecting with them.

[sc name="ending"] [sc name="chateic"] [sc name="otherposts"]

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €10 million in equity financing per project (€12.5 million total) and is designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants.

This article is part of a series that contains suggestions for the EIC and the EIC Board regarding various improvements to the evaluation process (see ChatEIC).

Risk

Risk is a difficult criterion because it is counterintuitive. It is usually best to give no more than 8 risks in a Step 2 proposal (4 technical, 4 commercial) that are rather vague but with strong mitigations. It is also best to avoid real-world risks or market risks (i.e., product-market-fit) since these will just lead to criticisms. 

From experience, risks are not realistic in grant proposals since they are like a hot potato. They must be there, but they should not be looked at for too long.

“High-risk” is also a very subjective and undefined term since it does not specify what is too high and what is too low (i.e., proper boundaries). This allows evaluators to reject applicants because of risks, which, in turn, makes applicants hide their risks better. Evaluators might suggest adding better risk mitigations, but having strong risk mitigations in place turns a high risk into a low risk.

If there is a high risk that a bridge pillar breaks, then the risk is high. If there are 5 risk-mitigation pillars around to step in at any time, then the risk becomes low. A mitigated risk is a low risk and is not a high risk.

The more transparent the applicant is regarding risks, the less likely they are to reach the interview, especially groundbreaking DeepTech businesses that create very difficult things.

High risk should not be a way of assessing the company in Step 3, but it should be replaced with other factors that are more descriptive. The Jury should not consider the risk itself but the circumstances surrounding it, especially for DeepTech:

• Is this a DeepTech company with a clear capital need? (high development costs, cannot be bootstrapped, will need more time to market)
  • Risk equivalent = Cashflow problems, ongoing investor reliance.
• Is there a race between just a small number of competitors trying to be the category winner?
  • Risk equivalent = Betting on the right one or maybe the only European option. Intense pressure from an incumbent with much more capital and reach.
• Does Europe lack the ecosystem to nurture successes? (lacking manufacturing, technology, infrastructure)
  • Risk equivalent = Even if the company has perfect execution and superior technology, the lack of an ecosystem might be a risk that can lead to failure. Examples are the lack of compute (AI superclusters, datacenters), high electricity costs, semiconductor fabs, GMP MedTech manufacturers, etc.
• Is the value chain not existing yet?
  • Risk equivalent = Even with a great product and pricing, there might be technical limitations to scaling. An example is the second-life battery value chain or recycling, where the value proposition is clear, but the value chain for collecting end-of-life materials and the quality control might not be there yet.

There are more examples, but these are very realistic circumstances that the EIC should consider more than the idea of high risks. There is no need to view technology developments or scaling as risky. DeepTech brings certain risks along with it, so the requirement to look for high risks is unnecessary.

The examples above are also all risks that should be funded since they are DeepTech aligned and of clear EU interest. Other risks, like the potential for benchmarks not being reached, integrations failing, etc., are too generic and can happen to any company. It should not be a way for a non-DeepTech company to sell itself as high-risk, since this is not aligned with the EIC's goals.

Jury Members and Domain Expertise

Airbnb has a simple feature after a stay: Rate the accommodation publicly through a review (i.e., the ESR) and then send a non-public message to your host. The EIC could use the same approach. The ESR is sent to applicants, and then a short list of questions by the Step 2 evaluators is sent to the Jury members.

Since not all Step 2 applicants will make it to the jury, every Step 2 evaluator should simply add 1 or 2 questions just in case.

Why this could make sense: The Step 2 evaluators usually have some type of domain expertise and can easily come up with 1 or 2 good questions in less than a minute. The jury (maybe) lacks domain expertise but has enough judgment to ask a technical question and then see how the interviewee will respond.

It is a simple and low-cost addition that could solve a few problems for the jury at once.

Equity Adjustments

The EIC Accelerator (formerly SME Instrument) has offered €2.5 million grants for over ten years, and the limit has not increased despite substantial inflation during that time. As a likely consequence, most companies aim for the maximum grant amount (about €2.3 million on average per winner), and it is reasonable that the jury is not allowed to change this amount since they could only reduce it.

Regarding the EIC Fund equity, the situation is different, and it would be preferable if the jury could change the amounts for a variety of reasons. Companies might reach the interview without being aware of the crowd-in factor, the co-investor requirements, the EU interests, or they might have made more progress in their fundraising efforts since submission. Instead of being outright rejected due to an unfitting equity amount, the jury (or EIB representative) should have the power to adjust the equity amount during or after the interview.

Why is this necessary? The grant funding has no strings attached, and the diligence process is straightforward. The equity funding is complicated.

It has a crowd-in factor, different tranches, negotiations, coordination with lead investors, and, most importantly, policy goals (i.e., strategic control, board seats). It makes sense to allow the EIC Jury or EIB representatives to adjust the equity to fit their needs, since that is what the EIB will do later on anyway.

It is also often advisable for EIC Accelerator applicants to request less equity because of these points. A company should not be rejected because of the equity amount, and the EIC should be able to reduce or increase it to fit their mission and budget.

Even today, the general rule for EIC Accelerator applicants is: If you ask for a grant, you will get the exact grant amount you requested. If you ask for equity, let’s see what you will get and when.

The EIC Fund already uses tranches, which means that the total amount that has been approved will likely be split into different funding rounds, while they also have a flexibility amount that allows them to change the equity amount later on. Since the EIC Fund and the EIB advisors will be able to make changes later on anyway, it would be in the interest of applicants to allow the EIC Jury to do the same in the earlier stages if the alternative would be a rejection due to technicalities.

Based on experience, applicants are generally confused about equity requests and amounts anyway, with most of their focus being on the grant component.

[sc name="ending"] [sc name="chateic"] [sc name="otherposts"]

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €10 million in equity financing per project (€12.5 million total) and is designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants.

This article is part of a series that contains suggestions for the EIC and the EIC Board regarding various improvements to the evaluation process (see ChatEIC).

DeepTech Definition

A good definition for DeepTech should allow applicants to self-filter and clearly communicate what the EIC is looking for:

• DeepTech must be all of the below (condition: AND)

• A technology not prevalent in the market yet, and with only very few direct competitors
• A technology base requiring deep domain expertise, often through PhDs, scientists, engineers, or similar
• A technology with a large-scale impact that is not limited to a small market niche and that can become the gold standard in its industry worldwide
• A level of market urgency that justifies the investment happening now
• A clear moat that protects the business from emerging/incumbent competitors, such as patents, assets, or know-how
• High capital requirements for product developments that are impossible to bootstrap

• DeepTech can be either of the below, but at least one (condition: OR)

• Based on scientific discoveries in a field
• Technological advancement that required interdisciplinary expertise across domains (i.e., a combination of scientific fields, engineering/software, etc.)
• Based on deep domain expertise in IT, hardware, or other areas
• Software (including IoT) is expected to have a complex backend that is based on new breakthroughs, scientific discoveries (i.e., AI, computer science, mathematics), or otherwise sophisticated technology components not currently or commonly found in the market

• DeepTech is none of the below (condition: IS NOT)

• • An innovative smartphone App, WebApp, or SaaS product with a simple backend and many similar competitors
  • A small business that is not designed to scale (i.e., a restaurant, farm, taxi/transport service, etc.)
  • A copycat product for existing technologies (i.e., telematics, e-hailing, hardware retrofitting, manufacturing, etc.)
  • An AI-wrapper that uses external LLM to generate value without providing significant breakthroughs or leveraging deep industry expertise (AI-wrapper = building SaaS on top of existing AIs, often via Anthropic/OpenAI)
  • A product that is already on the market but lacks customer interest, even if it has a scientific or technical base (i.e., trying to add features to make it more attractive)
  • Business model innovations that have no unique technology components

Applicants should use all three lists to assess themselves. For the first list, they should fit all criteria. For the second list, they should fit at least one criterion. For the third list, they must not fit into any criteria.

This definition is quite strict and might not cover all of the 700+ EIC Accelerator winners funded by the EIC since 2021.

Step 0: A Short Screener

When starting the Step 1 application, a simple questionnaire (checkboxes) should pop up that screens the general company profile. The EIC Accelerator Quiz also uses probing questions about the company based on the Jury interview experience and aims to filter them early on before even assessing the technology.

The questionnaire should not be an evaluation (i.e., no human evaluators) but should just follow a simple logic that gives a binary score:

• YES: Simply allow the applicant to start Step 1
• NO: “We have found some issues with your answers and do not think that you should apply for the EIC Accelerator. The issues we have identified are:” (list the points)

Applicants can choose to change their answers and apply anyway, but they would either have to lie or change their company to do so.

Here is a suggestion for the criteria where applicants can select either only one or multiple options, depending on the logic:

• Ownership held by the team actively working in the company (excluding outside investors, inactive employees, and hands-off shareholders)
  • You have raised €700,000 to €1.5 million, and your team holds at least 60% of the company equity
  • You have raised €1.5 million to €5 million, and your team holds at least 45% of the company equity
  • You have raised €5 million to €20 million, and your team holds at least 30% of the company equity
  • We have not raised that much
  • Our team holds less ownership than given
• Describe your current and past fundraising efforts. Investors can be: Venture Capital (VC), family offices, angel investors, industry venture arms, investment banks, private companies
  • We have not raised any funding
  • We have previously raised funding from investor types listed above
  • We have previously raised funding through government grants
  • We have previously raised funding through crowdfunding
  • We have previously raised funding through founder capital or friends and family
  • We are actively engaging investors (especially VC) now to raise funding in the near future
• Your company is registered in the EU or an associated country, and there is no holding company outside of the eligible territories
  • No, we have a holding company outside the EU or associated countries
  • Yes, there is no holding company outside the EU or associated countries
• You do not license your technology from another entity, but own all of your IP
  • Yes, we own all of our IP
  • No, we are licensing a core technology from another entity

The EIC can likewise use this form to define the minimum investment raised by applicants (i.e., €700,000 in this case). It can also filter out the companies that apply for grants because they do not want to engage VCs, which happens quite often.

Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)

TRLs are extremely subjective. The evaluators might consider the level to be 6, while the jury considers it to be 4. A failsafe way of assessing TRL6 is usually the validation of a prototype or component that contains the key innovation by a customer, end-user, or in an industrial setting (i.e., commercial testing facility, etc.). TRLs could be retained, but with clearer definitions that reflect what Jury members and evaluators care most about:

• Normal Starting Point (TRL6): Has a prototype or prototype component been tested by a customer, end-user, or in an industrial setting?
  • Pharma (TRL5): Has the device/drug been preliminarily tested for efficacy/safety in animals, humans, or qualified simulations?
• Normal Grant End (TRL8): All developments to create the final product are completed (R&D, pilots, demonstrators).
  • Pharma Grant End (TRL6-7): Made a meaningful advance towards human testing/validation (Phase 1 started or completed).
• Normal Equity End (TRL9): Scaling completed (production, manufacturing, deployment, distribution).
  •  Pharma Equity End (TRL7-8): Continued progress through Phases with a clear plan for commercialisation (Phase 2 started or completed)

Pharmaceuticals generally do not fit the TRL requirements if a funding ceiling of €2.5 million / €10 million is considered. The EIC has been careful not to publish TRLs for pharma and MedTech, but sometimes refers to other institutions that have. The general problem with pharma is that costs rise exponentially with every TRL, which does not fit the EIC Accelerator budget.

A solution could be to simply add a footnote for pharma companies that need extensive clinical trials in humans, allowing them to start earlier (TRL5) and finish earlier (TRL7-8) without requiring them to be ready to sell after a €2.5 million grant and one equity round.

[sc name="ending"] [sc name="chateic"] [sc name="otherposts"]

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €10 million in equity financing per project (€12.5 million total) and is designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants.

This article is part of a series that contains suggestions for the EIC and the EIC Board regarding various improvements to the evaluation process (see ChatEIC).

Interview Reimbursements

Applicants should be reimbursed for their travel expenses again if they are invited to Brussels. Germany, France, and central Europe in general are already dominating the EIC Accelerator winners lists, but they also have an unfair proximity advantage. Israel, Ukraine, Iceland, and many other deserving countries are simply very far away from Brussels.

The best way to accomplish this without using more funding is to make the Step 2 business coaching optional. Companies should be able to choose between getting a Step 2 coach or, if they are invited to the interview, getting the travel reimbursement.

Since the Step 2 business coaches are generally not EIC Accelerator writers and have usually not successfully written a proposal, they cannot adequately help with the writing process. This would be a very simple change to help make the application process fairer.

Any company that does not pick a business coach should have travel reimbursement by default. If they select a coach, they are notified that they will not be reimbursed for their travel in case they are invited to the interview.

Many companies in widening countries would likely prefer the travel reimbursements as will every company that is already working with a professional grant writer or consultant.

Programme Managers (PM)

Programme Managers who are thematic advocates for certain technologies as part of the EIC should be given a clear role if they participate in the interviews of EIC Accelerator challenges. They are neither Jury members nor EIB representatives or facilitators. They have to have a separate role that fits their capacity as technical experts.

First and foremost, there should be a rule of neutrality for PMs. They should not be allowed to undermine the applicants with their own bias, which, from experience, does happen on occasion.

One example of a clear role for the PM could be to give technical expertise to the Jury and contextualize information, but only if requested by the Jury. They are also able to interject if the interviewee made a factual mistake or misrepresents the science or technology.

The jury should be encouraged to involve the PM in their probing by asking them for clarification, if necessary. The PMs can act as technical advisors to the jury, but they are told to remain neutral and in service of the Jury.

An interview in which the PM remains silent is a good interview since they did not need to interject to correct false information, and the Jury did not need their clarifications since the interviewee explained everything well.

The same rule of neutrality should apply to EIC facilitators. They should likewise not undermine the applicants, which does happen as well on occasion.

Jury Briefing

The concept of having one Jury member brief the rest is good, but can be flawed if the briefing is insufficient. A simple workaround is to just feed the proposal into an LLM (EU-based, local) and give the Jury members access to summaries and a chat interface.

The Jury should be told that this chat interface is a tool for asking better questions. They can even ask the AI to generate good probing questions for them. Since the interviewee will always get the chance to answer, they will always be able to respond accurately, even if the AI makes a mistake.

Based on experience from being interviewed and interviewing, it is often not about the starting questions but about the discussions and follow-ups. An AI interface will create diverse starting questions that could potentially lead to the core of the company/technology faster, and can be a tool for the Jury to prepare more thoroughly.

Evaluator Focus

There needs to be a shift from how Steps 1 and 2 are graded by evaluators, since they often assess Projects while the Jury assesses Companies. A project can sound great and make sense, but the company behind it could be poor.

If Steps 1 and 2 are graded like essays, there will always be a way to game the evaluation. The evaluator should be a scout for the best companies and not akin to a teacher grading an essay (i.e., “you have forgotten to tell me which TRL this is, so you are rejected”).

In theory, the most amazing company that submits a poor proposal should still succeed in the EIC Accelerator because there should be sufficient facts to prove excellence. At least, this company should always make it to the interviews, even if their proposal writing skills are amateurish, since a good scout should recognize a diamond in the rough.

From experience, Juries prefer companies that have a strong corporate identity (i.e. nice slides, company branding, social presence), are focused on one thing (i.e. have a single technology with offices and employees at the same location), have a clear IP and technology origin story that shows their long-term dedication and are playing the VC game (i.e. active funding plans, engaging VCs).

Evaluators in Steps 1 and 2 almost always miss all of the quality markers above. They do not view a team that works remotely in different locations or has a US CEO as strange. They also do not assess the presentation from a funding perspective (i.e., pitch deck quality) because they are busy grading an essay (i.e., ESR checklist). When it comes to VC, the evaluators might not focus enough on the type of funding since Grantrepreneurs often slip through the cracks (i.e., companies that pivot from grant project to grant project with little to no private funding).

This is a difficult thing to integrate, but it could improve the switch from Step 2 to Step 3 by adding a Step 3 focus to the earlier stages. For that, the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) criteria must be adjusted, and Step 2 evaluators must be briefed with a Jury focus.

Equity Expenditure

The equity expenditure should not be scrutinised on a cost-by-cost basis (i.e., CAPEX). In the end, the EIC will be a minor co-investor (i.e., crowd-in factor of 3-4), and the investment will be 12+ months from the interview date.

During this time, much will have changed, and any plan presented in the proposal will likely have evaporated already. Since the due diligence is conducted by the lead investor, the EIC should trust the EIB and the lead to make the right decisions when the time comes.

[sc name="ending"] [sc name="chateic"] [sc name="otherposts"]

The EIC Accelerator funding (grant and equity, with blended financing option) by the European Commission (EC) and European Innovation Council (EIC) awards up to €2.5 million in grant and €10 million in equity financing per project (€12.5 million total) and is designed for startups and Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SME), often supported by professional writers, freelancers or consultants.

This article is part of a series that contains suggestions for the EIC and the EIC Board regarding various improvements to the evaluation process (see ChatEIC).

Block Divestments

The EIC provides funding to support European DeepTech, but the attractiveness of foreign investments, especially in later funding rounds, and the dominance of US markets remain a long-term issue in some cases. While the EIC cannot control what companies will end up doing since they have the right to do what is best for them, it can exert leverage through the grant.

Here are simple suggestions that can send a clear signal for what the EIC wants to accomplish, and these could be included in the Grant Agreement Contract:

Blocking Acquisitions

If a grant recipient is acquired by a non-EU (or non-associated country) entity within 10 years of receiving the grant, then the grant converts to a loan and must be paid back with interest.

Why? This change is effectively blocking the loss of EU DeepTech to other territories.

Considerations: VCs like exits, and this addition might deter them from co-investing with the EIC Fund or recommending the EIC grant entirely. Currently, companies are often pushed by VCs to apply for the EIC grant, so this might have an impact. While this is a potential downside, the EIC does absolutely not want buyouts to the US or China, so this might be the right strategy regardless of the potential side effects.

From a VC's perspective, this change would not necessarily close any exit windows since there are still many other ways to exit than through a US buyout (i.e., local buyout, IPO, secondaries). Additionally, if the valuations reach €1 billion, the small €2.5 million grant payback would be irrelevant to the foreign buyer since it would be below contractual fees for the acquisition process.

As a result, this rule could be very safe to integrate as a signal for what the EIC wants, and it can deter early-stage companies from divesting their IP instead of building in Europe. If a foreign acquisition is made regardless, the rule also returns the grant funding to the EIC, which means that it will never be a loss to the EIC or the EU DeepTech sector.

Other integrations: Mergers, SPACs, divesting IP, transferring technical and founding team, holding companies, etc.

Foreign Subsidiaries

If a grant recipient creates a (new) US or Chinese subsidiary within 2 years after the grant project has been completed, then the grant converts to a loan and must be paid back with interest.

Why? While the North American or Asian markets are important targets for all EIC Accelerator winners, the EIC would often prefer to see them be secondary markets after Europe. This is not always realistic since customers and revenues are often more available in the US, but the EIC could still try to send a signal that the companies should start with Europe before they scale in the US. Grant proposals also assess that aspect so including a formal rule makes sense.

Why this rule is risk-free: EIC Accelerator winners can still sell in these markets, can operate existing subsidiaries in the US or China, and can onboard distributors in these countries. The rule acts as a signal that an EIC Accelerator winner should not set up shop in another country right after completing the project for at least 2 years. Afterward, they are free to create subsidiaries in any country they like.

Why These Rules?

The EIC uses the equity investment as a leverage device (i.e., board seats, blocking divestments), but it neglects the leverage it has through the grants. No company wants “free money” to turn into a loan, so this is an underutilized leverage point that the EIC could easily integrate.

Funding Decisions

The EIC Jury might categorize interviewees into 4 general buckets: 

1. Interviewees who are rejected with clear red flags
2. Interviewees who are rejected with many flaws
3. Interviewees who are rejected with few flaws
4. Interviewees who are approved

Without understanding the full process of the selection, the suggestions will be brief:

Categories 1 and 4 are clear since these are definite rejections or approvals, respectively. Categories 2 and 3 are different since they have the vague stigma of flaws attached to them, which are quite subjective. Subjectivity is unavoidable in the EIC Jury since that is a feature rather than a bug (i.e., diverse backgrounds, different fields of expertise, etc.), but there should be a way to score the flaws against each other to create a fair ranking.

A way of accomplishing that could be to quantify the number of flaws and discuss their quality, since Jury members might weigh flaws differently.

Based on experience, every EIC Accelerator winner has flaws. If the Jury decides to fund them, then it just means that they found their flaws acceptable rather than deal breakers. But Jury members will find a certain flaw (i.e., inexperienced team) acceptable for one company but unacceptable for another, so there should be a way of reconciling that across all assessed companies.

The general problem is that the same flaw can be a problem for one company while it is not a problem for another. An inexperienced CEO with a confident and knowledgeable cadence will be perceived positively, while an inexperienced CEO who stutters himself into a dead end will not.

If the budget still allows for companies in categories 2 and 3 to be funded, then the Jury members can provide the reasons why companies should be funded and quantify the flaws that are real negatives, along with a weighting factor (i.e., 1, 2, 3).

This method is not perfect, but it aims to translate the subjective conviction of the individual Jury members into a quantified score that can be ranked in a fair manner.

Importantly, there should be no quota per panel where each panel has a minimum number of funding decisions to give. The final decision should be centralized at the end since it is about finding the best companies to be fair to the applicants and not to be fair to the Jury (i.e., by not making them only reject companies which can happen). 

Post Interview

Seal of Excellence (SoE)

This SoE certificate has been handed out for many years, and its meaning has changed over time. An SoE obtained in 2018 might not be of the same quality as an SoE obtained in 2025, but both are prominently displayed on company websites today.

Changing the SoE is not necessary, but it could be a good idea to attach an EIC Board recommendation to it. The SoE is supposed to be a signal for investors, but its meaning has changed too much, which renders it confusing at best.

An EIC Board recommendation, on the other hand, can be a single-page document, just like the SoE, that categorizes the company into a clear bucket with a timestamp attached to it.

One example of a category could be as follows: The EIC Board has thoroughly assessed this company and considers it to be highly attractive for private capital investments.

Resubmissions

Resubmitting a proposal 6 months after a rejection due to a small technicality is not ideal, as the effort of the initial evaluation will be lost, and the applicant must start from scratch. If the rejection was due to major red flags, then a resubmission is likewise unnecessary, especially if all Jury members feel that this company will never receive funding, no matter how hard it tries.

Red Flags

If the jury thinks that this company will never be funded (i.e., red flags), then the ESR should state a clear recommendation that honestly reflects this opinion:

“The applicant is free to resubmit their proposal, but the jury deems the chances of receiving funding to be very low. We advise the applicant to either apply with a different project or not to reapply.”

This recommendation should not be the default, of course, but it should be reserved for clear red flags that are just unfundable.

Rejection With Flaws

The jury should simply suggest a resubmission, but also indicate the nature of the flaws in a realistic manner. It should likewise justify why the applicant is sent back to the proposal stage, i.e.:

“The jury has identified critical flaws in the commercial and technical implementation of the project, which requires the applicant to revise the proposal before returning to the interview.”

Very Narrow Rejections

Narrow rejections are quite tricky since the budget will always be limited, and waiting for the next deadline might ruin the timing of the innovation. If there are only a small handful of applicants that are narrowly rejected (i.e., maybe just 2-6), but Jury members feel strongly about funding them, then there could be a second chance.

Maybe a remote follow-up interview of 30 minutes could be held on a single day, about 4 weeks after the interview, where applicants can report on the identified flaws and their mitigation.

This implementation does not fit too well into the current cut-off workflow of the EIC with a unified announcement, but having a Runners-Up announcement with a 6-week delay after the cut-off announcement could not be a bad marketing boost for the EIC in general, since it also generates publicity and gives more hope to applicants. It could be restricted to applicants with clear timing issues (i.e., waiting 6 months is too long), while the less urgent, narrow rejections will be invited directly to the next interview round.

[sc name="ending"] [sc name="chateic"] [sc name="otherposts"]