This is a sample report with illustrative mockup data — not a real evaluation. Sign up free to evaluate your own proposal →
Green Hydrogen Production via Solar-Driven Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting
Calibrated Assessment (5-Agent Pipeline)
This assessment synthesises the outputs of four specialist agents — novelty, feasibility, strategic fit, and consortium — into a calibrated final score. Scores are benchmarked against the 8 similar funded projects in the same call topic.
Overall: 7/10 (Strong)
The proposal is strategically well-positioned within Cluster 5 and benefits from a strong consortium with proven track records. However, the novelty score has been adjusted downward from the initial estimate after the novelty agent identified 15 highly similar funded projects, including two (SUN-PILOT and HYDROSOL-beyond) with >85% semantic overlap. The proposal does not sufficiently differentiate its approach.
Score Breakdown
Novelty: 5/10 (Good) — Reduced from initial 6. The research landscape analysis revealed that PEC water splitting is one of the most funded sub-topics in CL5-D3, with 15 projects in the last 3 years. The proposal's earth-abundant photoanode approach, while scientifically valid, has been explored in at least 4 prior funded projects. Differentiation is insufficient.
Feasibility: 6/10 (Good) — The TRL 3→5 trajectory is achievable but ambitious. The risk register identifies a critical dependency on EPFL's participation (Swiss association status uncertain) and a high-likelihood risk of scale-up efficiency losses. The absence of a TEA partner undermines the feasibility of delivering on the call's economic assessment requirement.
Strategic Fit: 8/10 (Strong) — The strongest dimension. Direct alignment with 4 of 5 call expected outcomes. The missing techno-economic assessment is the only gap, but it is a hard requirement — not optional. With a TEA partner, this score could reach 9.
Confidence
Agent confidence levels: Novelty (high), Feasibility (medium), Strategic Fit (high), Consortium (high). The medium confidence on feasibility reflects uncertainty about the scale-up timeline and EPFL participation status.
Improvement Checklist
6 itemsAdd a dedicated techno-economic analysis partner
The call explicitly requires 'techno-economic viability assessment' as an expected outcome. No current partner has this as a core competency. This is a gap that evaluators will flag immediately.
Articulate a clear differentiation from SUN-PILOT and HYDROSOL-beyond
Two highly similar projects (89% and 85% match) are currently funded. Evaluators will ask: what does this proposal do that SUN-PILOT doesn't? The current objectives don't answer this.
Add a work package on hydrogen storage integration
The call mentions 'system-level solutions' and 'integration with existing energy infrastructure' in expected outcomes. The proposal stops at hydrogen production without addressing downstream handling.
Include an SME partner in the consortium
The call emphasises 'involvement of relevant industrial actors including SMEs.' The current consortium has only one large industry partner (Engie). Adding a specialised SME (e.g., HyET Hydrogen) would address this.
Define intermediate TRL milestones with go/no-go criteria
The TRL 3→5 jump within 48 months is ambitious. Without intermediate milestones, evaluators may question feasibility. Similar funded projects typically include TRL 4 checkpoints at month 18–24.
Quantify the efficiency target pathway more explicitly
The 12% STH target is stated but the pathway to achieve it is vague. Reference specific material systems and benchmark against state-of-the-art (current record: ~19% for III-V multijunction, ~8% for earth-abundant).
Risk Register
5 risksPEC cell degradation faster than projected, preventing long-term stability demonstrations
Mitigation: Include accelerated aging protocol in WP2. Partner with a materials characterisation lab for in-situ degradation monitoring. Define a minimum 1,000-hour stability target as a go/no-go milestone.
EPFL association agreement delays due to Swiss participation framework renegotiation
Mitigation: Prepare a contingency plan with an alternative partner (e.g., CNRS or Helmholtz). Include a clause in the consortium agreement for partner substitution.
Scale-up from lab cells (1 cm²) to pilot modules (100 cm²+) introduces unforeseen efficiency losses
Mitigation: Define intermediate scale milestones (1→10→100 cm²). Allocate dedicated WP tasks for each scale transition. Reference SOLAR-H2 project learnings on scale-dependent losses.
Budget underestimates pilot-scale equipment costs
Mitigation: Benchmark equipment costs against HYDROSOL-beyond and SUN-PILOT reported expenditures. Include a 15% contingency line for pilot infrastructure.
Project timeline slippage due to parallel workstream dependencies
Mitigation: Implement monthly milestone tracking with critical path analysis. WP3 (scale-up) should not start until WP2 (cell fabrication) delivers validated 10 cm² cells.
Call Alignment Matrix
Novel device architectures for solar fuel production
The tandem PEC architecture with earth-abundant photoanode is the core innovation. Clear device-level contribution.
Solar-to-hydrogen efficiency >10%
12% STH target is stated but the pathway relies on material combinations not yet demonstrated at this efficiency. Risk of not meeting the target within project timeline.
Suggestion: Add intermediate efficiency milestones (6% at M12, 8% at M24, 10% at M36) with specific material systems for each.
Scalability demonstration at pilot level
Engie provides industrial pathway but no specific pilot site or scale target (m² of active area) is identified in the objectives.
Suggestion: Name Engie's specific facility and define a concrete pilot scale target (e.g., 1 m² active area, 0.5 kg H₂/day).
Techno-economic viability assessment
No work package, deliverable, or partner is dedicated to LCA or techno-economic analysis. This is explicitly required by the call.
Suggestion: Add ENEA or equivalent partner with a dedicated WP for lifecycle cost modelling and TEA.
Contribution to EU hydrogen strategy targets
Direct alignment with the European Green Deal hydrogen roadmap. The earth-abundant materials approach supports cost reduction targets.
Competitive Position
Strong strategic alignment and a credible consortium with proven track records. However, the field is crowded (15+ similar funded projects), novelty differentiation is weak, and the missing TEA component is a significant gap that evaluators will flag. With the recommended improvements (TEA partner, differentiation narrative, SME inclusion), this proposal could move into the top quartile.
- + Consortium includes world-leading PEC research groups (TU Delft, HZB)
- + Strong alignment with call expected outcomes on device architecture
- + Credible industrial pathway via Engie
- + Good geographic spread across 4 EU member states
- − High overlap with existing funded projects (SUN-PILOT, HYDROSOL-beyond)
- − Missing techno-economic analysis — a hard requirement from the call
- − No SME partner despite call emphasis on industrial involvement
- − TRL 3→5 jump ambitious without intermediate go/no-go milestones
Budget Allocation Guidance
Semiconductor synthesis, bandgap engineering, co-catalyst development
Cell assembly, characterisation, stability testing, efficiency benchmarking
Scale-up, balance-of-plant, pilot demonstration, hydrogen collection
Publications, IP management, exploitation plan, standardisation
Coordination, reporting, milestone tracking, risk management
Mock EC Reviewer Critique
Mock Reviewer Panel Assessment
Panel consensus: Score 11.5/15 — Above threshold but not in funding range
Reviewer 1 (Materials Science Expert)
The materials approach is sound and builds on established literature. However, the novelty claim is weakened by the large number of similar funded projects. The proposal does not sufficiently explain why this particular combination of photoanode materials will outperform those already under investigation in SUN-PILOT and PEC-NET. The efficiency target of 12% STH is ambitious but the pathway lacks specific intermediate benchmarks. Score: 4/5 (Very Good)
Reviewer 2 (Hydrogen Systems Engineer)
The system integration work package is underdeveloped. Engie's involvement is promising but no specific pilot facility or scale target is defined. The transition from lab-scale cells to a pilot demonstration within the project timeline raises feasibility concerns. The absence of techno-economic analysis is a significant gap — the call explicitly requires this. Score: 3.5/5 (Good to Very Good)
Reviewer 3 (EU Policy & Impact)
Strong alignment with EU hydrogen strategy and the Green Deal. The consortium is well-structured geographically. However, the proposal would benefit from an SME partner and a dedicated work package on lifecycle assessment and cost modelling. The impact pathway is credible but would be strengthened by concrete exploitation commitments from Engie. Score: 4/5 (Very Good)
Panel Recommendation
The proposal has strong foundations but requires improvements before it would be competitive for funding. The critical gap is the absence of techno-economic analysis (a hard call requirement). Addressing the three reviewer concerns — novelty differentiation, pilot scale definition, and TEA partner — would likely move this proposal into the funding range.
Improvement Checklist
6 itemsAdd a dedicated techno-economic analysis partner
The call explicitly requires 'techno-economic viability assessment' as an expected outcome. No current partner has this as a core competency. This is a gap that evaluators will flag immediately.
Articulate a clear differentiation from SUN-PILOT and HYDROSOL-beyond
Two highly similar projects (89% and 85% match) are currently funded. Evaluators will ask: what does this proposal do that SUN-PILOT doesn't? The current objectives don't answer this.
Add a work package on hydrogen storage integration
The call mentions 'system-level solutions' and 'integration with existing energy infrastructure' in expected outcomes. The proposal stops at hydrogen production without addressing downstream handling.
Include an SME partner in the consortium
The call emphasises 'involvement of relevant industrial actors including SMEs.' The current consortium has only one large industry partner (Engie). Adding a specialised SME (e.g., HyET Hydrogen) would address this.
Define intermediate TRL milestones with go/no-go criteria
The TRL 3→5 jump within 48 months is ambitious. Without intermediate milestones, evaluators may question feasibility. Similar funded projects typically include TRL 4 checkpoints at month 18–24.
Quantify the efficiency target pathway more explicitly
The 12% STH target is stated but the pathway to achieve it is vague. Reference specific material systems and benchmark against state-of-the-art (current record: ~19% for III-V multijunction, ~8% for earth-abundant).
Risk Register
5 risksPEC cell degradation faster than projected, preventing long-term stability demonstrations
Mitigation: Include accelerated aging protocol in WP2. Partner with a materials characterisation lab for in-situ degradation monitoring. Define a minimum 1,000-hour stability target as a go/no-go milestone.
EPFL association agreement delays due to Swiss participation framework renegotiation
Mitigation: Prepare a contingency plan with an alternative partner (e.g., CNRS or Helmholtz). Include a clause in the consortium agreement for partner substitution.
Scale-up from lab cells (1 cm²) to pilot modules (100 cm²+) introduces unforeseen efficiency losses
Mitigation: Define intermediate scale milestones (1→10→100 cm²). Allocate dedicated WP tasks for each scale transition. Reference SOLAR-H2 project learnings on scale-dependent losses.
Budget underestimates pilot-scale equipment costs
Mitigation: Benchmark equipment costs against HYDROSOL-beyond and SUN-PILOT reported expenditures. Include a 15% contingency line for pilot infrastructure.
Project timeline slippage due to parallel workstream dependencies
Mitigation: Implement monthly milestone tracking with critical path analysis. WP3 (scale-up) should not start until WP2 (cell fabrication) delivers validated 10 cm² cells.
Call Alignment Matrix
Novel device architectures for solar fuel production
The tandem PEC architecture with earth-abundant photoanode is the core innovation. Clear device-level contribution.
Solar-to-hydrogen efficiency >10%
12% STH target is stated but the pathway relies on material combinations not yet demonstrated at this efficiency. Risk of not meeting the target within project timeline.
Suggestion: Add intermediate efficiency milestones (6% at M12, 8% at M24, 10% at M36) with specific material systems for each.
Scalability demonstration at pilot level
Engie provides industrial pathway but no specific pilot site or scale target (m² of active area) is identified in the objectives.
Suggestion: Name Engie's specific facility and define a concrete pilot scale target (e.g., 1 m² active area, 0.5 kg H₂/day).
Techno-economic viability assessment
No work package, deliverable, or partner is dedicated to LCA or techno-economic analysis. This is explicitly required by the call.
Suggestion: Add ENEA or equivalent partner with a dedicated WP for lifecycle cost modelling and TEA.
Contribution to EU hydrogen strategy targets
Direct alignment with the European Green Deal hydrogen roadmap. The earth-abundant materials approach supports cost reduction targets.
Competitive Position
Strong strategic alignment and a credible consortium with proven track records. However, the field is crowded (15+ similar funded projects), novelty differentiation is weak, and the missing TEA component is a significant gap that evaluators will flag. With the recommended improvements (TEA partner, differentiation narrative, SME inclusion), this proposal could move into the top quartile.
- + Consortium includes world-leading PEC research groups (TU Delft, HZB)
- + Strong alignment with call expected outcomes on device architecture
- + Credible industrial pathway via Engie
- + Good geographic spread across 4 EU member states
- − High overlap with existing funded projects (SUN-PILOT, HYDROSOL-beyond)
- − Missing techno-economic analysis — a hard requirement from the call
- − No SME partner despite call emphasis on industrial involvement
- − TRL 3→5 jump ambitious without intermediate go/no-go milestones
Budget Allocation Guidance
Semiconductor synthesis, bandgap engineering, co-catalyst development
Cell assembly, characterisation, stability testing, efficiency benchmarking
Scale-up, balance-of-plant, pilot demonstration, hydrogen collection
Publications, IP management, exploitation plan, standardisation
Coordination, reporting, milestone tracking, risk management
Mock EC Reviewer Critique
Mock Reviewer Panel Assessment
Panel consensus: Score 11.5/15 — Above threshold but not in funding range
Reviewer 1 (Materials Science Expert)
The materials approach is sound and builds on established literature. However, the novelty claim is weakened by the large number of similar funded projects. The proposal does not sufficiently explain why this particular combination of photoanode materials will outperform those already under investigation in SUN-PILOT and PEC-NET. The efficiency target of 12% STH is ambitious but the pathway lacks specific intermediate benchmarks. Score: 4/5 (Very Good)
Reviewer 2 (Hydrogen Systems Engineer)
The system integration work package is underdeveloped. Engie's involvement is promising but no specific pilot facility or scale target is defined. The transition from lab-scale cells to a pilot demonstration within the project timeline raises feasibility concerns. The absence of techno-economic analysis is a significant gap — the call explicitly requires this. Score: 3.5/5 (Good to Very Good)
Reviewer 3 (EU Policy & Impact)
Strong alignment with EU hydrogen strategy and the Green Deal. The consortium is well-structured geographically. However, the proposal would benefit from an SME partner and a dedicated work package on lifecycle assessment and cost modelling. The impact pathway is credible but would be strengthened by concrete exploitation commitments from Engie. Score: 4/5 (Very Good)
Panel Recommendation
The proposal has strong foundations but requires improvements before it would be competitive for funding. The critical gap is the absence of techno-economic analysis (a hard call requirement). Addressing the three reviewer concerns — novelty differentiation, pilot scale definition, and TEA partner — would likely move this proposal into the funding range.
Ready to evaluate your own proposal?
Start with 3 free evaluations. No credit card required.
Evaluate your proposal free