Every innovation funding program lists commercial viability among its criteria, and applicants read the phrase as a compliment they must earn: proof that their business is good. Reading the evaluation from the evaluator's chair dissolves this misunderstanding, and with it a whole family of application errors. The committee is not asking whether the business is good. Committees ask three narrower questions, in an order most applicants never guess.
The committee's first check is the gap. Public support is designed to finance something the market will not finance at this stage — the research phase, the first demonstration, the de-risking between idea and investability. An application whose financials show the project succeeding comfortably without the grant fails the logic of the program, however strong the business: there is nothing for the money to close. The applicant's work is to show the specific gap — the phase that stalls without support, the milestone that private money will fund only after the program's money has moved it — and to make that gap visible in the financial model rather than in adjectives. This is the additionality logic behind the split between public and private capital, and it is the first question because a project that fails it needs no further reading.
The second check is delivery capacity, not commercial promise. Programs disburse against milestones, and a committee that funds a project the applicant cannot execute has not made an investment; it has created a future failure with public money attached. So the committee reads the application as a delivery audit: does the team have the specific competencies the work plan requires, are the resources — people, equipment, partners — contracted or hoped for, is the timeline consistent with the team's other commitments. A brilliant plan attached to a thin delivery base reads as risk, not as ambition. Funding readiness exists precisely because this check fails quietly: the application was never weak on vision, only on the boring evidence that the organization can carry the work plan.
Only now does the market appear, and it appears as a path, not as a verdict. The committee does not certify that a market will materialize — no committee can. It checks that the applicant has a concrete, internally consistent route from the project's results to paying users: who adopts first and why, what the path assumes about regulation or certification or partner behavior, how the assumptions connect to what the work plan will actually produce. A page of specific path logic outweighs a chapter of market enthusiasm, because the committee's actual fear is funding a technically successful project whose results never leave the laboratory — a known failure mode of public programs everywhere, and the reason «commercial viability» entered the criteria in the first place. Positioning the project for funding is, in large part, writing to this fear.
The through-line: the committee is defending the program's own logic — that public money should close gaps, produce results, and see those results reach the market — and every section of a strong application is an answer to that defense rather than a description of the company. Applicants who internalize the switch stop writing about how good the business is and start writing about what the program's money does, what the organization will demonstrably deliver, and how the results travel to the market. Same facts, different document.
«Commercial viability» in an evaluation is not a judgment about the future of the business. It is a committee asking the application to prove three small, unglamorous things: the gap, the capacity, and the path.
Rescue for most rejected-but-fundable projects looks the same: the science was ready, the market was real; only the application was answering a question nobody had asked. The gap is repairable before resubmission, and the repair is an editorial one — the same facts, reorganized around the three questions in their order, so the committee meets its own defense already answered on the first pages.
We use cookies to analyse traffic and improve the site. Analytics is enabled only with your consent. Cookie Policy