Funding criteria are not bureaucratic boxes. They are a window into what the funder believes matters. Before you write a word, sit with that for a moment. What change is this organisation trying to drive? What risks are they trying to manage? The answers shape not just how you respond to the criteria, but what you choose to emphasise across the entire proposal.
Researchers write what they want to say. Panels assess what the criteria explicitly ask for. These two things often sit miles apart. Closing that gap is one of the most direct ways to improve your score.
Criteria determine your score
Each criterion is a scoring opportunity. Unanswered criteria mean reviewers cannot award points, regardless of how brilliant your ideas are. They cannot score what they cannot see.
Before polishing a single sentence, hold your proposal up against each criterion and ask one brutal question: where exactly have I answered this? An answer scattered across several sections means reviewers might miss it. An answer that is merely implied will not count.
Criteria shape your narrative
The bigger mistake is treating criteria as a mechanical checklist rather than a narrative tool. Criteria reveal what the panel values, what needs emphasis, and where the risks in your proposal lie. Use that information. Let the criteria shape your structure and help you decide what to foreground.
The margins test
Print your proposal. Write each criterion’s name in the margin beside where you have addressed it. Any criterion appearing only once? Strengthen it. Any criterion missing entirely? Serious work lies ahead. An editor earns real value here, not making sentences prettier, but ensuring your proposal speaks the panel’s language.
Image by vectorjuice on Freepik
Recent Comments