May 13, 2026 · 10 min read

Not sufficiently justified in EU proposals: why evaluators need evidence, not more words

“Not sufficiently justified” is one of the most common and frustrating comments in EU proposal evaluations. It rarely means that the proposal needed more text. It usually means that a claim lacked evidence, logic, and traceability.

Few comments in an Evaluation Summary Report are more frustrating than this one:

“Not sufficiently justified.”

It feels vague.

It feels unfair.

It feels like the evaluator wanted more explanation, but did not explain what was missing.

For proposal writers, consultants, universities, research centres, startups, and innovation teams, this comment can be especially painful because it often appears next to a section that already felt detailed, ambitious, and carefully written.

But in most cases, “not sufficiently justified” does not mean “write more.”

It means something more specific.

It means:

“Your claim was not sufficiently supported.”

That distinction matters.

Because adding more words to an unsupported claim does not make it stronger.

It only makes the weakness harder to find.

What “not sufficiently justified” really means in EU proposal evaluation

EU funding proposals are not evaluated on ambition alone.

They are evaluated on whether the proposal gives the evaluator enough evidence, logic, and traceability to believe the claims being made.

A sentence can sound impressive and still be weak.

A paragraph can be long and still be unjustified.

A claim can be strategically relevant and still fail because the proposal does not explain how the conclusion was reached.

When evaluators write “not sufficiently justified”, they are usually pointing to one of four problems.

1. A claim without evidence

This is the most common issue.

The proposal states that the project will improve performance, reduce cost, increase efficiency, accelerate adoption, or create major impact.

But it does not provide evidence.

For example:

“The solution will significantly improve hospital efficiency.”

That may be true.

But the evaluator still needs to understand:

Which part of hospital efficiency?
What is the current baseline?
What evidence supports the expected improvement?
Has this been tested, simulated, benchmarked, or validated?
Under which conditions does the improvement apply?

Without that chain, the statement remains a claim.

Not a justified conclusion.

2. A number without derivation

Numbers are powerful in EU proposals.

They can make a proposal more concrete, credible, and evaluator-friendly.

But unsupported numbers are also dangerous.

A proposal may state:

“The solution will reduce waiting times by 25%.”

That sounds precise.

But precision is not the same as credibility.

The evaluator will immediately ask:

Why 25%?
Compared to which baseline?
Based on which dataset?
Is it a pilot result, a simulation, a benchmark, or an assumption?
What variables were included or excluded?
Can the result be replicated in the target environment?

A number without derivation can damage trust because it suggests certainty without showing the reasoning behind it.

This is one of the reasons why market and impact claims often fail under evaluation pressure.

We discussed a similar issue in our proposal tip on exaggerated market assumptions: Does your project have a higher market share than Tesla?

The same principle applies here.

A number is only as strong as the logic behind it.

3. An assumption without boundary conditions

Many proposal claims depend on assumptions.

That is normal.

The problem is not using assumptions.

The problem is presenting assumptions as if they were facts.

For example:

“The solution can be rapidly deployed across European hospitals.”

This may be reasonable in some contexts.

But the evaluator needs to know the boundary conditions:

Which type of hospitals?
Which countries?
Which IT systems?
Which procurement environments?
Which regulatory constraints?
Which clinical workflows?
Which implementation resources?
Which integration requirements?

A justified assumption is transparent.

It tells the evaluator where the claim applies, where it may not apply, and what needs to be true for the expected result to materialise.

An unjustified assumption hides uncertainty.

Evaluators notice that.

4. An ambition without a credible pathway

EU proposals often fail because they describe an attractive destination without explaining the route.

For example:

“The project will transform emergency department operations across Europe.”

That may sound compelling.

But it is not yet justified.

A credible pathway would explain:

What will be transformed first
Which workflow will be addressed
Which users will adopt the solution
Which evidence already supports adoption
Which technical and operational barriers remain
How pilots will validate the approach
How results will scale beyond the first deployment

Impact needs a mechanism.

Scale needs a pathway.

Ambition needs proof.

Without these elements, the evaluator may not reject the vision, but they may conclude that it is not sufficiently justified.

A simple test for every critical claim

Before submitting an EU funding proposal, every critical claim should survive three questions.

1. Based on what?

What evidence supports the statement?

This may include:

Pilot data
Prototype tests
Retrospective analysis
Scientific literature
Customer validation
Market research
Benchmarking
Regulatory data
Technical simulations
Internal experimental results

The key is not to include evidence randomly.

The key is to connect the evidence directly to the claim.

2. Compared to what?

A claim only becomes meaningful when the baseline is clear.

For example:

Reduced cost compared to which current process?
Faster diagnosis compared to which workflow?
Lower emissions compared to which reference scenario?
Higher efficiency compared to which state of the art?
Better accuracy compared to which benchmark?
Larger market share compared to which adoption curve?

Without a baseline, the evaluator cannot judge the magnitude of the improvement.

A proposal that says “25% improvement” without a comparison point is not giving the evaluator a result.

It is giving the evaluator a question.

3. Validated how?

Even when the baseline and evidence exist, the evaluator still needs to understand how the claim was validated.

Was it tested in a lab?

Was it validated in a relevant environment?

Was it simulated?

Was it derived from peer-reviewed studies?

Was it based on user interviews?

Was it measured in a pilot?

Was it estimated using conservative assumptions?

Each validation method has different strength.

The proposal should make that strength visible.

Example: the difference between ambitious and justified

Consider this sentence:

“Our solution will dramatically transform emergency department operations by using advanced AI-based prioritisation to reduce waiting times by 25%, improve patient flow, optimise clinical resources, support faster decision-making, enhance patient experience and create a more efficient, scalable and future-ready hospital workflow.”

This sounds ambitious.

It is also long.

But it is still weak.

Why?

Because the evaluator is left with too many unanswered questions.

Why 25%?
Compared to which baseline?
In which workflow?
In which type of hospital?
With which patient group?
Validated with what data?
Through which mechanism?

The sentence creates an expectation, but it does not justify it.

Now compare it with this version:

“Our solution targets triage-to-specialist review, where the current median waiting time is 74 minutes across three pilot hospitals. The expected 25% reduction is based on a retrospective simulation of 2,100 anonymised cases, where automated pre-review data aggregation reduced manual preparation time from 14.6 to 9.8 minutes per case.”

This version is stronger.

Not because it is more ambitious.

Because it gives the evaluator a chain they can follow:

baseline → mechanism → dataset → quantified effect

That is what justification means.

Not more words.

Better proof.

Better logic.

Better traceability.

Why this matters for Horizon Europe and EIC Accelerator proposals

In competitive EU funding calls, evaluators are not only asking whether the project is interesting.

They are asking whether the proposal has made its case convincingly.

This is especially important in programmes such as Horizon Europe and the EIC Accelerator, where applicants often present complex technologies, ambitious scale-up plans, market projections, technical milestones, regulatory pathways, and impact estimates.

In these contexts, unsupported claims can appear in many places:

Excellence sections
State of the art comparisons
Innovation claims
Technical objectives
TRL progression
Market forecasts
Competitive analysis
Impact pathways
Commercialisation plans
Work packages
Risk mitigation
Financial projections

One weak claim may not destroy a proposal.

But repeated unsupported claims create a pattern.

That pattern can lead evaluators to question whether the team has overestimated the project maturity, market readiness, technical performance, or commercial feasibility.

The evaluator does not have access to your internal context

One of the most dangerous assumptions in proposal writing is this:

“The evaluator will understand what we mean.”

They may not.

Evaluators do not have access to the conversations, internal data, customer calls, technical debates, pilot lessons, or strategic reasoning behind the proposal.

They only see the text.

If the proposal does not make the evidence visible, the evidence effectively does not exist for evaluation purposes.

This is why proposals need to be written with an evaluator mindset.

Not only:

“Is this true?”

But also:

“Can a critical evaluator verify why this is true from the page itself?”

This is also why using generic AI tools without proper evaluator logic can be risky. A text may become smoother, more fluent, and more confident, while still leaving the underlying evidence gaps untouched.

We covered this distinction in more detail here: Ruthless Evaluator vs ChatGPT: why proposal evaluation needs more than rewriting

How to identify unjustified claims before submission

A practical way to review a proposal is to scan for sentences that contain strong claims.

Look especially for words and expressions such as:

significant
disruptive
transformative
scalable
cost-effective
market-leading
unique
breakthrough
highly efficient
rapid adoption
strong demand
substantial reduction
major improvement
clear competitive advantage

These terms are not wrong.

But each one creates a burden of proof.

The stronger the claim, the stronger the evidence should be.

A useful internal review exercise is to create a simple claim-evidence matrix.

For every critical claim, ask five questions:

What are we saying?

This defines the claim.

Compared to what?

This defines the baseline.

Based on what?

This defines the evidence.

Validated how?

This defines the validation method.

What still needs to be proven?

This defines the remaining uncertainty.

This kind of review can reveal weak points quickly.

It can also prevent last-minute proposal editing from becoming superficial polishing rather than real quality control.

What good justification looks like

A justified proposal claim usually has five components.

1. A precise scope

The proposal defines exactly what is being claimed.

Not:

“We will improve healthcare efficiency.”

Better:

“We will reduce manual preparation time in triage-to-specialist review.”

Specificity makes the claim easier to assess.

2. A clear baseline

The proposal explains the current situation.

For example:

“The current median waiting time is 74 minutes across three pilot hospitals.”

A baseline gives the evaluator a reference point.

3. A credible mechanism

The proposal explains how the improvement will happen.

For example:

“Automated pre-review data aggregation reduces the time clinicians spend collecting and organising patient information before specialist assessment.”

The evaluator needs to see the causal link.

4. Supporting evidence

The proposal shows where the estimate comes from.

For example:

“The estimate is based on a retrospective simulation of 2,100 anonymised cases.”

Evidence makes the claim assessable.

5. Transparent limitations

Strong proposals do not hide uncertainty.

They manage it.

For example:

“The result will be prospectively validated during the pilot phase across two additional emergency departments with different patient flow profiles.”

This shows maturity.

It tells the evaluator that the team understands what is proven, what is assumed, and what still needs validation.

A strong sentence is not the one that sounds most ambitious

In EU funding proposals, the strongest sentence is rarely the most impressive one.

It is the one that the evaluator can verify.

That is a different standard.

A good proposal sentence should help the evaluator understand:

What is being claimed
Why it matters
What evidence supports it
How it was calculated
What baseline it uses
What assumptions it depends on
How it will be validated further

This is what separates persuasive proposal writing from promotional writing.

Promotional writing tries to sound convincing.

Proposal writing needs to be verifiable.

Where Ruthless Evaluator fits

This is exactly why we built Ruthless Evaluator.

Not to make proposals sound better.

Not to add more words.

Not to decorate weak claims with stronger language.

Ruthless Evaluator is designed to help applicants, consultants, universities, research centres, startups, and innovation teams identify the weaknesses that often become painful Evaluation Summary Report comments later.

It helps detect issues such as: