Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine: WIDERA; MSCA;CL5;CL6

5873115 428625 0 0 -3810 9724390 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post [email protected] www.taltech.ee 0 0 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post [email protected] www.taltech.ee -3810 428625 0 0 Sihtasutus Eesti Teadusagentuur Soola 8 2 6 .0 8 .202 6 nr 11-10/48-26 51004 Tartu Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine Käesolevaga taotleb Tallinna Tehnikaülikool ( reg nr 74000323, ak EE201010052037382001) ettevalmistustoetust järgmistele projektidele, mis on ületanud lävendi ja kus ülikool on koordinaatoriks: 1. HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 : ESTRADA 101340691 Twinning to promote Tallinn University of Technology’s scientific excellence and innovation capacity in irradiation tESTing and RADiation-hardened design of nAnoelectronic systems (Taltech). Vastutav täitja prof Jaan Raik, arvutisüsteemide instituut; SCALE-6G 101340169 Sense , Compute , Localise , Communicate in 6G. Vastutav täitja Yannick Le Moulleck , TJS elektroonikainstituut; CARE-FULL Spaces 101341111 CARE-FULL Spaces : Strengthening Institutional Capacity and Excellence in Care- Based Urban Research, Design, and Planning . Vastutav täitja Lill Sarv, ehituse ja arhitektuuri instituut; SusBioLoop 101340837 Emerging sustainable technologies for circular bio-based polymer value chains . Vastutav täitja Yevgen Karpichev, keemia ja biotehnoloolgia instituut; TALCEEET 101339620 Boosting TalTech Capacity in Energy Efficient and Resilient Electrification Technologies. Vastutav täitja Andrii Chub, elektroenergeetika ja mehhatroonika instituut; TWIN4CARE 101340463 Twinning for Participatory and Interdisciplinary Methods in Trustworthy Intelligent Welfare Technology for Ageing Societies . Vastutav täitja Katrin Kangur, IT Kolledž; TalTech SPIN 101341197 TWINNING FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE IN ENGINEERING ‑ PEDAGOGY AND CHALLENGE ‑ BASED LEARNING. Vastutav täitja Ingrid Pappel, tarkvarateaduste instituut; TripleWin 101340205 Strengthening Research Excellence in Place-based Computing . Vastutav täitja Ralf-Martin Soe, Targa linna tippkeskus; RAPID-RES 101340570 Capacity Building in Mission- Oriented Applied Research for Rapidly Deployable Dual-Use Energy Solutions. Vastutav täitja Ivo Palu, elektroenergeetika ja mehhatroonika instituut; LEXMINE 101339426 Legal EXcellence for MINing-region transition governancE . Vastutav täitja Thomas Hoffmann, õ iguse instituut; ACT-TWIN 101340523 ACT-TWIN: Human -in- the -Loop Immersive Simulation Centre of Excellence for Socio-Technical Systems. Vastutav täitja Helery Tasane, ärikorralduse instituut; TWINRES 101341021 TWINNING FOR A RESILIENT DIGITAL SOCIETY: INTEGRATING CIVIL PROTECTION AND VITAL SERVICES. Vastutav täitja Riina Palu, tarkvarateaduse instituut; EVOLVE 101340636 Enhancing excellence in resilient maritime autonomy through twinning , validation and European integration . Vastutav täitja Kristjan Tabri, ehituse ja arhitektuuri instituut; DigiCAP 101341055 Digital Literacy and Capabilities for Civic Resilience in Smart Cities . Vastutav täitja Kaija Veskioja, Targa linna tippkeskus; RE-SERVE 101340745 Reusable and Serviceable Small Space Systems. Vastutav täitja Taavi Raadik, materjali- ja keskkonnatehnika instituut; ORGANIZE 101340318 Organoid- based Advanced Network for Integrated biomedical research and capacity building in Europe. Vastutav täitja Marko Vendelin, küberneetika instituut; PIEMG 101339646 Policy Innovation and Experimentation in the context of Multi-level - Governance . Vastutav täitja Ringa Raudla, R. Nurkse innovatsiooni ja valitsemise instituut; ICE-DYN 101340940 Building Excellence in Arctic Sea-ICE DYNamics for Offshore Engineering and Safe Maritime Operations . Vastutav täitja Artu Ellmann, ehituse ja arhitektuuri instituut; AGORA-OSA 101338491 Advancing Governance Capacities for Open Strategic Autonomy in Europe. Vastutav täitja Erkki Karo, R. Nurkse innovatsiooni ja valitsemise instituut; MATISSE 101339428 Materials AI for Scientific Synthesis and Exploration . Vastutav täitja Svetlana Polivtseva, küberneetika instituut; NordicTwin 101338482 Advancing Nordic Research Excellence in Digital Twins for Software- Defined Electric Mobility . Vastutav täitja Anton Rassõlkin, elektroenergeetika ja mehhatroonika instituut; DNAauto 101340146 Diversification of FerryBox usage for semiautonomous environmental DNA sampling and storage . Vastutav täitja Sirje Sildever, Meresüsteemide instituut; DigiGOV 101340054 Strengthening Digital Governance and Management of The Built Environment Lifecycle at TalTech. Vastutav täitja Ergo Pikas, ehituse ja arhitektuuri instituut; SMARTWIN 101341284 Smart Machine Learning for Trustworthy Energy Control in Buildings and Urban Districts through Twinning for Excellence . Vastutav täitja Avleen Malhi, Targa linna tippkeskus; GeoEcon 101339521 Economic Complexity for European Economic Security and Resilience . Vastutav täitja Tarmo Kalvet, ärikorralduse instituut; AGES 101340993 Aging Consumers in Digital E ‑ Societies . Vastutav täitja Aditi Sarkar , ärikorralduse instituut; PV- Accel 101340992 ACCELERATING R&I CAPACITY AND EXCELLENCE IN ECO-DESIGN OF THIN-FILM PHOTOVOLTAICS FOR SPECIALTY APPLICATIONS. Vastutav täitja Ilona Oja Acik, materjali- ja keskkonnatehnoloogia instituut; HealthTech 101340354 Advancing TalTech into a Competitive Health Technologies Research and Innovation Centre . Vastutav täitja Jana Holmar, tervisetehnoloogiate instituut; ProMari 101339611 Capacity Building for Protecting Maritime Critical Infrastructure against Hybrid and Cyber Threats . Vastutav täitja Vesa Sihvonen , Eesti Mereakadeemia; SoftAI 101338858 Advancing AI Soft Skills for Human-Centric AI Research, Education and Industry. Vastutav täitja Mari-Klara Stein, ärikorralduse instituut; CO-THRIVE 101339604 COmmunity-led post- growTH tRansitIons : adVancing socioEcological systems and strategies . Vastutav täitja Christos Giotitsas, R. Nurkse innovatsiooni ja valitsemise instituut; CoTransform 101339719 Reframing Collaboration for Transformative Change in Sustainability Transitions . Vastutav täitja Bianka Plüschke-Altof , ärikorralduse instituut; RarEst 101339028 Rare eArth Research Excellence : Strategic Twinning to build a European research node for Nd -Fe-B magnet processing and circularity in Estonia. Vastutav täitja Hans Tiismus, elektroenergeetika ja mehhatroonika instituut; 2. HORIZON-MSCA-2026-SE-01 : - INDIGO 101344532 International Network in wiDe band gap semIconductors for next Generation Optoelectronics . Vastutav täitja Maarja Grossberg-Kuusk, materjali- ja keskkonnatehnoloogia instituut; - ECO-TRUST 101342876 ECOlogical Governance and TRUST in Asia . Vastutav täitja Archil Chochia, õiguse instituut. 3. HORIZON-CL5-2026 : - BALTIC-CO2-SECURE 101338371 Baltic CO2 Storage Evaluation and Characterisation for Ultimate Reservoir Efficiency . Vastutav täitja Alla Šogenova, geoloogia instituut; - SHAPED 101325969 Scalable Holistic Approach for Positive Energy Districts . Vastutav täitja Viktorija Prilenska, Targa linna tippkeskus; - UPWOOD 101326428 Optimising refurbishment , repurpose and renovation solutions for climate-neutral buildings from engineered underused WOOD with integrated building health monitoring systems . Vastutav täitja Alar Just, ehituse ja arhitektuuri instituut; - UMEIA 101326724 DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIFIED METHODOLOGY AND TOOL FOR EIA FOR OFFSHORE WIND FARMS IN THE ICE-COVERED SEA. Vastutav täitja Inga Zaitseva-Pärnaste, Kuressaare Kolledž. 4. HORIZON-CL6-2026 : - CosmoRural 101342322 Cosmolocal Production for Rural Innovation and Sustainable Competitiveness . Vastutav täitja Christos Giotitsas, , R. Nurkse innovatsiooni ja valitsemise instituut Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Marika Lunden Teadusosakond Lisa: Hindamisleh ed left 284480 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected] 0 0 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected] Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340691 Proposal acronym: ESTRADA Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Twinning to promote Tallinn University of Technology’s scientific excellence and innovation capacity in irradiation tESTing and RADiation-hardened design of nAnoelectronic systems (Taltech) Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 731,825 48.83% 731,825 48.83% 2 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA IT 151,250 10.09% 151,250 10.09% 3 UNIVERSITEIT TWENTE NL 218,437.5 14.58% 218,437.5 14.58% 4 UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA DE MADRID ES 194,250 12.96% 194,250 12.96% 5 UKRI-STFC UK 202,915.42 13.54% 202,915.42 13.54% Total: 1,498,677.92 1,498,677.92 Abstract: The ESTRADA Action aims to elevate the scientific excellence and innovation capacity of Tallinn University of Technology (Taltech) in the field of irradiation testing and radiation hardened nanoelectronic systems design through strategic collaboration with leading European research institutions. Leveraging a twinning framework with La Sapienza University, the University of Twente, UP Madrid, and UKRI-STFC, ESTRADA will reinforce Taltech’s role within the European rad hard electronics ecosystem over a three year period. The project will establish a sustainable research framework for radiation hardened design and irradiation testing of nanoelectronic systems by advancing joint research across four complementary domains: algorithm level fault tolerance, open source fault resilient system on chip architectures, irradiation test development and design for testability, and reliability qualification using atmospheric like high energy neutron sources. These activities will generate tangible R&D outcomes and strengthen technology transfer and advanced training capabilities at Taltech. ESTRADA will enhance research excellence and competitiveness through intensive knowledge exchange, including staff mobility, joint supervision of early stage researchers, specialised training events, and engagement with the broader European irradiation testing and accelerator community. In parallel, the project will raise Taltech’s international research profile, monitoring impact through scientific output, innovation indicators, industry collaboration, and inclusiveness metrics. To ensure long term sustainability, ESTRADA will upgrade Taltech’s research management and administrative capacities and contribute to the establishment of a National Competence Centre for Radiation Hardened Nanoelectronics Design and Test to support Estonia’s emerging space and deep tech industries, strengthen policy advisory capabilities, and anchor durable international collaboration beyond the project’s lifetime. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340691/ESTRADA-20/07/2026-19:40:33 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The focus of the proposal is to develop the capacity for irradiation testing and design of radiation hard electronics at the beneficiary. The objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable. The objectives are pertinent to those of the Work Programme including capacity and excellence building, increasing the reputation at the beneficiary and improve research management capacity. Increased researcher mobility and novel research collaborations are embedded in the descriptions of other objectives. --------- The objective related to the establishment of the national competence centre for radiation hardness is not sufficiently detailed. Other objectives are clear, verifiable, measurable and achievable within the timeframe of the project. The proposal addresses the work programme objectives. Improved research capacity of the widening institution is well demonstrated. The objective of higher reputation and attractiveness of the widening institution is specific and detailed. Research management capacity is discussed sufficiently and researchers mobility is clearly outlined. Novel R&I approaches are also well presented. However, institutional ties to leading institutions are not sufficiently addressed. --------- The objectives are very well defined, clear, measurable and achievable with the planned effort. The project strengthens Estonia’s positioning in semiconductor technologies, building expertise in reliable, radiation-hard nanoelectronics at the coordinator. Partnerships with renowned institutes add complementary skills to establish a National Competence Centre, embedded within a European network. Researcher exchanges, seasonal schools, and transfers of technological- and management-know-how will boost the coordinator’s scientific and management skills, while specific measures safeguard long-term project achievements. --------- The objectives are clear and achievable. However, their measurability and verifiability are limited by the lack of sufficient quantitative information, particularly regarding the research goals in relation to the state of the art and the expected performance of the proposed technology compared with existing alternatives based on clearly defined key metrics. The objectives will improve research, create stronger ties between the widening coordinator and the leading institutions, improve the higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles, strengthen research management capacities of the coordinator and increase researcher mobility. The novelty of the proposed R&I collaboration approaches is less clearly demonstrated, particularly regarding the specific objectives to be achieved and the long- term sustainability of the collaboration beyond the project’s duration. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The presentation of activities for staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. is not sufficiently presented. The proposal is strongly focused on the research component. Activities to improve research management capacity are adequately described. The SWOT analysis shows that the beneficiary already has considerable strengths but also important threats that can severely affect the outcome of the project. Open Science practices are adequately integrated. --------- Knowledge transfer methodology is not discussed sufficiently in the proposal. The research component methodology is of good quality and is well presented in the proposal. Proposed activities related to research management are specific and of good quality. Proposed open science practices are specific, pertinent and well integrated into the project --------- By fostering strategic collaboration and networking, strengthening research and management skills, and supporting capacity building, the project activities are well suited to enhancing scientific excellence and innovation capacity at the coordinating institution. Building on a SWOT analysis of the coordinator’s scientific and management profile, the proposed methodology and targeted activities, including mutual exchanges of experts and researchers between the coordinator and the partner institutions, schools, training programmes, and regular workshops, are very well aligned with the project objectives. A dedicated work package addresses the upskilling of research management staff in a comprehensive manner through training activities, mutual staff exchanges, online tutorials, and collaborative networking. Open science practices (reproducibility, results sharing, open access policies, open peer reviews, handling of IP) are deliberately and explicitly addressed in completeness and quality. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. The challenges and mitigation measures are quite basic and not necessarily very effective: for instance fast and harmonious mitigations are mentioned but it is not clear what measures will be implemented and how. Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach are well planned. The research component is qualitatively described and is appropriate and interesting, however, a more thorough comparison to the state of the art, highlighting the main novelty of the proposed work is not sufficiently presented. The research management work package is appropriate and expected to be effective. The Open Science practices are quite basic but adequate. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340691/ESTRADA-20/07/2026-19:40:33 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The expected outcomes of the Work Programme are presented only as a list accompanied by brief and generic descriptions. Although a table maps the project objectives to the expected outcomes, no corresponding outcomes are sufficiently identified for two of the objectives. The proposal also includes a table of Key Performance Indicators with quantitative targets for both short- and long-term outcomes, which is adequate for measuring the expected impacts. Broader societal, economic, and scientific impacts are described and appropriately linked to the proposed KPIs. --------- The project results are credibly presented, are specific, quantifiable and of appropriate scale and are in line with expected outcome of the twinning work programme. They are presented for different target audiences. The indicators to measure researchers’ mobility are not sufficiently explained. All other proposed qualitative and quantitative indicators are adequate to measure the expected impacts. --------- The strategic aspect, i.e. building a European centre of competence on irradiation testing and radiation-hardened nanoelectronic systems is considered technically and strategically very meaningful. The achievement of the project results is credible. Despite their relevance, the research results of the project per se may have limited impact, but the transferred and acquired knowledge on methodologies, research management at the coordinator and the established academic network and organisational structures will be a significant step toward the goals of the work programme. The proposed set of KPIs with comprehensive quantitative short- and medium-term target figures is suitable for quantifying and measuring the expected impact. The targets are convincing and realistic. --------- The project results are of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. However, some of the proposed indicators are not supported by sufficient evidence to be considered fully credible. In particular, the projected increase in the h- index and the high number of publications do not appear feasible within the project’s duration. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- There are extensive plans for dissemination and communication that will be updated during the lifetime of the project. However, the expected impact beyond the duration of the project is not sufficiently discussed. The exploitation plan is detailed, listing exploitation activities for each of the partners in the project. Barriers to achieve impact are adequately described with some ways to overcome these barriers. Intellectual property management is well described including examples of expected results that can be protected and procedures for handling these. --------- Proposed dissemination and communication measures are detailed and are of very good quality. Specific conferences, journals and other resources are identified. The results are expected to be impactful after the project completion. The exploitation measures are appropriate. The barriers to the project impact and countermeasures are presented sufficiently. The proposal presents adequate measures for intellectual property management and protection. --------- The project goes beyond standard dissemination measures by envisaging several actions aimed at fostering long-term interest and acceptance through networking with industry and the wider public. For example, annual visits to secondary schools are intended to stimulate young people’s interest in science and encourage future scientific careers. The emphasis is primarily on scientific exploitation, including strengthening the partners’ scientific profiles, improving methodologies and management structures, and expanding their networks. Although direct commercial exploitation is not foreseen, potential pathways towards the aerospace and defence industries will be explored. Barriers to achieving the expected impacts are discussed mainly from the Estonian perspective, while potential barriers affecting the other partners are not sufficiently considered. The management of intellectual property, structured around the main categories of project outputs, is very appropriately organised and reflects the consortium’s long-term commitment. --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope. The project has clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate. Intellectual property management and protection are adequate. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340691/ESTRADA-20/07/2026-19:40:33 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured with interrelated work packages. The activities for staff exchange and events are sufficiently detailed. Deliverables and milestones are adequate and well distributed over the duration of the project. Distribution of resources and budget is adequate for the project. The research component focuses on design of radiation hard electronics and irradiation testing. The description of critical risks related to implementation is extensively discussed. Mitigation measures are adequate. --------- The proposed work plan is well structured and timed. The resources are well distributed between the work packages and among the consortium partners. The figures are consistent across parts A, B and the budget spreadsheet. Implementation risks are clearly presented, the respective countermeasures are of good quality. --------- The work plan's structure by work packages and subtasks, contents and timing of milestones and deliverables are clear and meaningful. Planning of staff exchanges, trainings and schools is done thoroughly and names of involved personnel have been even already identified. Most risks are addressed only at a general level, and the proposed mitigation measures are vague and not always convincing. Access to experimental facilities and the scheduling of beam time at the neutron sources of partner UKRI-STFC are subject to the organisation’s standard selection and approval procedures. As the project has no influence over the allocation, timing, or duration of beam time, this creates significant organisational and implementation risks that are not adequately addressed in the proposal. --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured, and logically timed. Work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal. Risks relative to implementation are clearly described, but some mitigation measures are not effectively addressed, for instance in relation to coordination problems and risks arising from external factors and budgetary issues. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The project consortium includes four internationally leading institutions with different key competences necessary to achieve the objectives of the project. The leading institutions provide the beneficiary necessary support to the Widening coordinator through an extensive program for staff exchange and training. The partners roles and responsibilities are appropriate for the project. The partners together have the competence and infrastructure necessary for the allocated tasks. --------- The consortium includes four leading partners. Support from the leading institutions to the widening coordinator is planned via a range of specific measures including training, visits and PhD co-supervision. The support measures are of high quality. The roles within the consortium are appropriately distributed and in line with the project objectives. The technical expertise is appropriately distributed over different domains (design, algorithms, irradiation facilities). The allocation of tasks across the consortium aligns with each partner's specific expertise and available infrastructure. The actions for commercial exploitation lack specific details. --------- The consortium includes several research institutes being worldwide renowned in their respective areas that support actions for the widening coordinator, through staff exchanges, co-supervision of students, "train the trainer" programs, and education in proposal writing and R&I management. A transfer of scientific methodologies and skills will further contribute to consolidating the Estonian radiation-hard systems design ecosystem. The partners' roles and responsibilities align perfectly with the requirements of their allocated tasks. All partners have the required skills, means and infrastructure to perform the envisaged tasks. Direct industrial participation is neither required nor planned, as activities are in an early research phase far from commercial use. However, future exploitation is ensured via an advisory board (e.g., Airbus, ARM) providing monitoring and strategic guidance, which is considered an adequate solution. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading institutions providing to the Widening coordinator the necessary support to successfully implement the project. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. The industrial and commercial involvement is adequate for the exploitation of results. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101340691/ESTRADA-20/07/2026-19:40:33 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340691/ESTRADA-20/07/2026-19:40:33 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T19:40:39 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340169 Proposal acronym: SCALE-6G Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Sense, Compute, Localise, Communicate in 6G Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 399,487.5 26.69% 399,487.5 26.69% 2 UNIVERSITEIT TWENTE NL 336,921.13 22.51% 336,921.13 22.51% 3 POLITECNICO DI MILANO IT 236,264.49 15.79% 236,264.49 15.79% 4 EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE CH 291,375 19.47% 291,375 19.47% ZUERICH 5 FONDAZIONE ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI TECNOLOGIA IT 232,550 15.54% 232,550 15.54% Total: 1,496,598.12 1,496,598.12 Abstract: 6G-SCLC will strengthen TalTech’s scientific excellence, international networking, and innovation capacity through a Twinning partnership with four leading European Advanced Partners (University of Twente, Politecnico di Milano, ETH Zurich, Italian Institute of Technology). The project builds upon the emerging interdisciplinary field of 6G based sensing, compute, localisation, and communication, with the underlying Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC) as its unifying scientific pillar. The project links four complementary topics (ISAC and precise localisation, physics informed material and process modelling for digital manufacturing, RF sensing for healthcare and smart environments, and resource-efficient distributed Edge AI and actuation) with AI/ML support and with considerations for application-oriented pathways. This will reduce TalTech’s existing but currently fragmented expertise and create durable, reusable capacity. 6G-SCLC will be implemented through joint research, strategic networking, education and training, and research and innovation management capacity building. The research component integrates the above four topics; TalTech and Advanced Partners will co- develop reusable models, methods, datasets, workflows, proof of concept results, and progressively consolidate them into an open-source 6G-SCLC reference toolbox. 6G-SCLC is directly aligned with the Twinning objectives by strengthening excellence in a Widening country, deepening collaboration with advanced partners, and building sustainable capacity in research, education, open science, innovation support, and stakeholder engagement. It will also lay the groundwork for TalTech to act as a national reference point in 6G-based SCLC. KPIs include e.g. 32 short term scientific missions, 9 new or updated courses and training modules, at least 4 follow-up joint proposals, alongside the delivery of reusable assets (4 models, 4 methods, 4 datasets, and 1 modular open source 6G-SCLC toolbox). Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence 101340169/SCALE-6G-20/07/2026-14:16:32 1/7  Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal sets out well-defined objectives, supported by credible and measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Strategic objectives reflect a coherent roadmap. The objectives are very clear and well aligned with the goals of the work programme. The coordinator's research ambition is clearly articulated. Strategic ties between leading partners are well presented. The level of research support provided to the coordinator is clear, and novel research and innovation approaches are identified in a very comprehensive way. The expected improvements in research competences, international visibility, research management, and institutional capacity are credibly and thoroughly demonstrated. Personnel mobility is well addressed. --------- The objectives are clearly formulated, coherent, and supported by a solid scientific rationale. They are achievable within the scope of the action and linked to activities that enable verification. However, their measurability is only partially demonstrated. The objectives are pertinent to the Twinning action. They strengthen research excellence and capacities, reinforce strategic ties with leading partners, enhance institutional reputation and staff profiles, support research management development, integrate novel R&I collaboration approaches, and embed researcher mobility through structured exchanges and training. --------- The objectives are clearly formulated, with measurable and verifiable Key Performance Indicators defined. Target values for these indicators have been provided. The stated objectives are ambitious yet achievable. The objectives are well aligned with the aims of the programme. The proposed work is expected to strengthen both the research and research management capacity of the widening beneficiary. The approach to enhancing collaboration among the participants and improving the coordinator’s reputation is clearly described. The objective of increasing researcher mobility among the partners, particularly involving the widening beneficiary, is also clearly articulated. Novel collaboration approaches are limited. --------- All objectives and the overall objective of the proposal are clear, sound, and measurable. The objectives are strongly aligned with the objectives and expected outcomes of the work programme. The targeted concept of an open source toolbox is excellently suited for strengthening scientific and research management capacity at the coordinator, and opens an ideal field for several complementary joint research co- operations. There is a high number of measures - among them the intensive exchange of researchers and staff during the entire duration of the project - being excellently suited for strengthening the research management capacities and the ties between the co-ordinator and leading institutes in the long term. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology 101340169/SCALE-6G-20/07/2026-14:16:32 2/7  a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The methodology to strengthen the scientific excellence of the coordinator is clearly outlined, targeting topics such as 6G, communication, sensing mobility, and system integration. The methodology addresses very well the networking for research excellence, education, and skills. Differentiation from the baseline is clearly shown in the research domain and education skills where the added value of the cooperation is well articulated. The collaborative environment is thoughtfully designed and well-presented, focusing on the scientific capacity enhancement built around targeted knowledge transfers from leading partners to the coordinator. This is further supported by a broad range of transfer skills actions and networking activities, reinforcing the methodological framework. Research and innovation management and administration capacity enhancement are only briefly addressed, lacking detail on baseline comparisons. Open Science and data management practices are well developed. --------- The coordination and support measures are coherent and appropriate to deliver the objectives. The methodology combines training, mobility, and joint research in a complementary manner. Methodological challenges and their mitigation are only briefly addressed. AI‑related elements are included, but robustness aspects such as validation, data provenance, reproducibility, and potential failure modes are not sufficiently detailed. The research component is clearly defined and aligned with the scientific objectives. Open Science practices are described, but the implementation pathway lacks sufficient operational detail. --------- The proposed activities are described in a good level of detail, and the various measures are clearly explained and well aligned with the objectives of the call. Planned activities include staff exchanges, expert visits, training sessions, conference participation, online lectures, and joint workshops. The research component is adequate. However, there are limited information on how the proposed work will specifically advance the state of the art. Consideration of the gender dimension is limited. The research management work package is well defined and is expected to strengthen the coordinator’s capacity. Open Science practices are adequately addressed, including plans for data sharing and the dissemination of results. --------- The elaborate plan for mutual staff exchanges of research and management-staff (short-term missions), seasonal schools, and workshops is excellently designed to enhance strategic collaboration and ensure long-term partnerships among the coordinator and the partners. Research is organized in a single work package covering complementary, highly relevant disciplines. These are structured into core technology- and application- oriented layers that integrate meaningfully to advance the state of the art. Furthermore, a dedicated work package focuses on boosting the coordinator’s research management skills through training, workshops, and structured mutual staff exchanges. Compliance of data and information management with Open Science principles is monitored and guaranteed by a specific task. A data management plan will be set up in the first six months. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340169/SCALE-6G-20/07/2026-14:16:32 3/7  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The expected outcomes are clearly structured and well elaborated, reflecting a well-thought approach to impact. They are well explained and well quantified. Quantitative and qualitative indicators are formalized credibly and convincingly, providing a solid and elaborated basis for monitoring progress. The expected results are well linked to objectives and to the overall methodology. The proposal effectively demonstrates its long-term contribution to widening impacts, and the scalability of outcomes is well described. The sustainability and broader relevance of the project beyond its funded period are credible, and the proposed indicators are ambitious and realistic. --------- The proposal identifies relevant scientific and institutional impacts, and the planned activities have the potential to strengthen the widening institution’s research profile. The pathways from activities to outcomes and impacts remain vague, and the mechanisms through which the Twinning measures will translate into sustained institutional change are not fully articulated. Moreover, the pathways from activities to outcomes and impacts remain vague, and the mechanisms through which the Twinning measures will translate into sustained institutional change are not fully articulated. Indicators are provided but remain limited in number and lack sufficient precision, and they only partially capture expected outcomes. --------- The anticipated results, as well as the projected enhancement of the widening beneficiary’s research capability and expertise, are clearly explained. The proposal clarifies how most of the identified stakeholders will be informed about findings and benefit from the project’s outcomes; the engagement activities are primarily targeted towards the research, regulation, and industrial communities. The proposal defines appropriate indicators, including qualitative and quantitative measures of scientific output, participation in workshops and summer schools, and levels of staff mobility and training activities, both online and offline. These indicators are suitable for measuring and evaluating the impact achieved. --------- Though challenging and extremely ambitious in scope and number of targeted measures, the identified project results are very good and credible. With their extreme high extent and richness, the project measures and results are excellently suited to achieve all the expected outcomes and impacts of the work programme towards strengthening the coordinators position in the long term. The proposal gives several clear and quantitative KPIs that are very well suited for measuring the scientific output, the performance of proposed measures, and their impact. However, there is lack of detail on measurable targets for the scientific activities themselves. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are well outlined and elaborated with a good level of detail. They are credible. Project target groups are well identified, and specific messages are pertinent. Specific dissemination actions are clearly defined, with pertinent scope and timeline. Communication activities are of very good quality, supported by credible quantitative indicators. Exploitation plans are concretely structured around Key Exploitable Results linked to specific user groups, reflecting a well-thought and targeted approach to impact delivery. Barriers to impact realisation are clearly elaborated, with sufficient details. IP management is addressed in a clear way. --------- Dissemination, communication, and exploitation measures are appropriate and cover relevant channels. However, prioritisation of target audiences and expected results is not fully developed, and measures to ensure impact beyond the project duration and scope are insufficiently detailed. External barriers to impact, such as limited industry uptake or dependence on external institutional support, are not sufficiently analysed, and proposed mitigation measures are insufficiently detailed. The IPR approach is only briefly outlined and does not provide sufficient information on how results will be managed and protected. --------- The activities related to dissemination, exploitation, and communication are proportionate to the size of the project. They are well defined and support and sustain the project’s impact on science and research both during and beyond the implementation phase. The project identifies some barriers to achieving impact and proposes mitigation measures that are focused on the availability of skilled workers, weak links between social needs and research, and limited credibility in the international innovation/technology chains. The proposal provides top-level information on how the protection and management of intellectual property rights will be handled. For details, it refers to a future consortium agreement, this is adequate at this stage. --------- A dedicated work package covers dissemination, communication, and exploitation in excellent extent, ensuring long-term sustainability and preparing commercial exploitation beyond the project's end. Beyond conventional dissemination by publications, workshops, seminars, and conferences, the plan involves industry stakeholders and public outreach. Results are presented via events like open days, night public labs and school workshops to the civil society in order to raise awareness and interest the scientific offspring (schools, local communities and wider public). The proposal briefly discusses a few impact barriers but lacks depth regarding external strategic, budgetary, or economic risks. Intellectual property management and protection are adequately planned. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation 101340169/SCALE-6G-20/07/2026-14:16:32 4/7  Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The workplan is well-thought, with coherent work packages that engage all partners in its execution. Partner's role in the task execution is well elaborated, the plan for secondments and events is closely related to the task description, and this is very appreciated. Task descriptions are comprehensive, and the timeline for task execution is realistic. Project management is sound. Deliverables are well planned for effective monitoring of the project. The distribution of resources among partners is fair, aligned with the objectives, and consistent across all submitted documents. Overall the lump sum budget is appropriate, except for two partners for which costs are insufficiently substantiated. The implementation risk is thoroughly elaborated, systematically linked to specific work packages and mitigation measures, and is presented in a highly convincing manner. --------- The work plan is coherent, well‑structured, and logically timed. Activities are interrelated and aligned with the objectives. However, the effort allocated to training and curriculum‑development activities appears insufficient relative to their scope. Risks are identified, but the analysis remains high‑level, and several key risks and mitigation measures are not described in sufficient detail to fully assess robustness. --------- The work plan has a logical structure, the work packages are appropriately interrelated, and the overall distribution of resources is effective. The budget is consistent across the tables presented in Parts A and B. Several risks have been identified, and corresponding mitigation measures are described. Considering the broad scope and complexity of the project, the range of identified risks is adequate. However, not all proposed mitigation strategies are sufficiently convincing. --------- Structured by well-interrelated work packages, the work plan is effective, well thought-out, and supports the achievement of the project goals in a very efficient way. Each work package is meaningfully structured by tasks and its objectives are clearly described. However, the research tasks structured within a dedicated work package around the described SCALE-6G reference toolbox lack clear, quantified, and measurable technical targets. Comprising a wide range of educational measures — such as mutual researcher exchanges, schools, seminars, and training activities — the work plan effectively serves the expected programme outcomes, including improved research excellence and capacity in Widening countries and enhanced strategic collaboration between institutions in these countries and leading research organisations Implementation risks have been well and extensively described and discussed. The mitigation measures are adequate. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise 101340169/SCALE-6G-20/07/2026-14:16:32 5/7  a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- Alongside the coordinator from a widening country, the consortium includes internationally leading research establishments. The competencies of all partners are clearly outlined, and their strong research standing is well established. The nature and extent of the support provided by the leading partners to the coordinator is well defined. Role of the partners in the project execution is well aligned with project objectives, and the commitment of the partners is duly explained. The research infrastructure utilized for the project is well described with sufficient details. The industrial/commercial involvement in the exploitation of the results is not sufficiently justified --------- The consortium includes internationally recognised institutions with strong scientific excellence and relevant expertise. The advanced partners provide appropriate scientific and technical support. The widening institution demonstrates motivation and potential for growth, though its administrative readiness is only partially evidenced. Roles and responsibilities are generally appropriate and aligned with the project’s objectives, though responsibilities in non‑scientific areas are insufficiently detailed. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are aligned with the allocated tasks. Industry involvement is referenced but not clearly substantiated or integrated into the implementation pathway. --------- The consortium consists of international partners, including leading universities and a research organisation, thus meeting the requirements The widening beneficiary also serves as the project coordinator. Clear interaction points between the partners are defined, and appropriate support mechanisms for the widening beneficiary are described. The roles and responsibilities of each participant in achieving the project objectives are described with sufficient clarity. The partners’ combined expertise and infrastructure are strong and are expected to support the successful implementation of the project. The consortium demonstrates solid technical expertise. Industrial/commercial involvement is not clear. --------- The consortium comprises globally recognized research institutes, which are leaders in their respective fields relevant to this proposal. Through a well-structured and comprehensive support program, each partner provides extensive guidance aimed at enhancing the coordinator’s research and management capabilities. Furthermore, these support actions focus on refining dissemination and exploitation strategies, ensuring long-term sustainability and fostering enduring institutional relationships. The roles and responsibilities of the partners are well aligned with the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure at the partners are well aligned with the allocated tasks. However, due to the insufficient description of the technical work, it is unclear to what extent the coordinator’s infrastructure requires further improvement. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided 101340169/SCALE-6G-20/07/2026-14:16:32 6/7  Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340169/SCALE-6G-20/07/2026-14:16:32 7/7  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T14:16:44 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101341111 Proposal acronym: CARE-FULL Spaces Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: CARE-FULL Spaces: Strengthening Institutional Capacity and Excellence in Care-Based Urban Research, Design, and Planning Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 767,981.18 51.22% 767,981.18 51.22% 2 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT DELFT NL 304,954.66 20.34% 304,954.66 20.34% 3 IMD International Institut for Management Development CH 152,500 10.17% 152,500 10.17% 4 UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA ES 274,025 18.27% 274,025 18.27% Total: 1,499,460.84 1,499,460.84 Abstract: CARE‑FULL‑Spaces strengthens TalTech’s ability to educate future urban planners and architects who can design resilient, equitable, and high‑quality urban environments under conditions of climate change, demographic shifts, and increasing pressure on housing and green‑space access. The project advances interdisciplinary urban research and design education by embedding care ethics, spatial justice, and climate resilience into design competences, enabling professionals to understand cities as complex socio‑technical systems and to respond to intertwined environmental, social, and spatial challenges. It addresses structural gaps typical of Widening‑country universities, including fragmented collaboration across disciplines, limited research‑management capacity, and persistent gender imbalances. Through a coordinated Twinning partnership with TU Delft, UAB, and IMD, CARE‑FULL‑Spaces develops the conceptual and methodological foundations of the Just, Resilient and Caring (JRC) Cities framework. This includes a pilot indicator logic, comparative analyses, and initial tools for identifying socio‑spatial and socio‑ecological inequalities. These elements are tested and refined in Living Labs at the TalTech campus and in Ülemiste City, where students, researchers, and stakeholders co‑create and evaluate care‑oriented design and planning approaches in real institutional settings. By integrating joint research, advanced training, mobility, and co‑supervision, the project strengthens TalTech’s capacity to deliver interdisciplinary education in architecture and urban planning. In parallel, it enhances institutional performance through improved proposal‑development processes, research‑management practices, and inclusive career frameworks. Targeted mentoring and gender‑sensitive measures support early‑career and women researchers, contributing to a more balanced and collaborative research and learning environment. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 11.75 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101341111/CARE-FULL Spaces-20/07/2026-18:23:51 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The objectives are generally clear, measurable, verifiable and achievable. The objectives are generally pertinent to the Twinning Work Programme. A shortcoming is that the scientific novelty remains moderate, as the proposal mainly combines care-based urban research, Living Labs, spatial justice and participatory planning without clearly demonstrating substantial advancement beyond the state of the art. --------- The proposal defines sufficiently clear objectives that range from strengthening research excellence to enhancing research management and talent retention. These objectives sufficiently improve research capacities, build ties among partners and strengthen the research management capabilities. Collaboration enhances the widening partner's reputations and attractiveness, yet a more focused scope of collaboration is insufficiently present. Research management capacities are sufficiently promoted. Novel research collaborations are partially addressed with interdisciplinary research through the JRC Cities hub, establishing long-term cooperation via joint research agendas and staff exchanges, raising the coordinator's profile, reinforcing management and creating new living labs and mobility. --------- The objectives are sufficiently clear, measurable, verifiable and achievable: All the objectives are mapped to corresponding KERs and work packages have clear and measurable KPIs for each KER. The objectives are sufficiently pertinent to those of the work programme. The project improves research capacities through its objectives by developing stronger strategic ties, increasing institutional reputation and attractiveness, strengthening research management capacities, developing novel R&I collaboration approaches and increasing research mobility both inwards and outwards. --------- The proposal presents clear and relevant objectives focused on strengthening the coordinating partner's research excellence and institutional capacity in interdisciplinary urban studies, care-based urbanism and spatial justice. The objectives are supported by indicators related to mobility, training, networking and institutional development. The proposal is aligned with the Twinning objectives regarding research excellence, institutional transformation, strategic collaboration, mobility and research management. The integration of interdisciplinary approaches and ERA aspects are also relevant. However, the proposal includes multiple institutional objectives that are presented in a general manner and defined with limited clarity and information. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed activities and methodology are generally coherent and appropriate to deliver the objectives. A shortcoming is that the methodology relies strongly on networking, mobility, Living Lab activities and coordination measures, while the long-term structural transformation pathway remains only partially operationalised. Open Science practices are adequately integrated through open access, FAIR data and data management measures. The practical arrangements for long-term reuse, reproducibility and scalability of outputs beyond the project duration remain only partially substantiated. --------- The "Action Research" methodology remains disconnected across fields of sciences aiming to integrate analytical baselines. Diverse coordination measures, such as staff exchanges and seasonal schools, support effective knowledge transfer. Dedicated research and research management work packages provide the scientific foundation and utilise research management competence alignment to strengthen institutional management. The project adheres to the requirements by ensuring immediate open access. Research data follows FAIR principles, governed by a Data Management Plan. Partner agreements, such as publisher contracts, further facilitate open access. --------- The staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools and outreach are sound and appropriate. The research component is sound overall, however, the extent of the JRC framework is not sufficiently described; the research work package only lays the groundwork and the deliverable (JRC conceptual framework) but it does not substantiate implementation. Moreover, the Living Lab methodology only marginally advances the state of the art, and the application of the Smart City Index, which already includes humane dimensions such as quality of life and inclusiveness, is not sufficiently justified against the novelty of the CARE-based framework; In addition, the gender dimension is not sufficiently integrated into the scientific component. The research management work package and tasks to improve management capacities are sound. Open Science practices are adequately integrated. --------- The methodology is coherent and combines Living Labs, mentoring, mobility, co-supervision and training activities in a credible manner. The proposal demonstrates adequate integration between research, education and institutional transformation and the research-management and development activities are aligned with the objectives of the Twinning call. The interaction between the research component, training measures and institutional learning is well described. However, the methodological stages and their operational alignment with the project objectives remain insufficiently defined. In particular, limited detail is provided on how the successive methodological phases, Living Lab activities and framework-development processes contribute to achieving the expected institutional and scientific outcomes. Open Science principles, CoARA alignment and research assessment measures are presented with clarity and integrated with the emerging activities. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 3.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101341111/CARE-FULL Spaces-20/07/2026-18:23:51 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The project results broadly address the expected outcomes of the Work Programme. A shortcoming is that the expected impact remains only partially substantiated beyond the specific institutional and urban contexts addressed by the proposal. The indicators are relevant but mainly activity-oriented, including targets such as joint articles, conference presentations, short-term scientific missions, cumulative participants, curriculum modules and Horizon Europe proposals. These indicators do not provide credible evidence of durable institutional transformation, long-term European uptake or sustained competitiveness beyond the project period. --------- The results are credible, as they build on the established expertise of the leading partners. The scale is appropriate, targeting institutional-level reforms while contributing to the broader European Research Area (ERA). Results like the JRC Cities framework and revised MSc curricula are designed for long-term integration into permanent structures. The indicators are defined and sufficient. Quantitative metrics include specific counts for mobilities, participants and joint proposals. Qualitative indicators focus on the adoption of a sustainability roadmap and the successful implementation of gender-sensitive recruitment procedures, however, they are insufficiently described. --------- The project results are credible, of sufficient scale and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the work programme, for example, multiple short-term scientific missions, a sufficient number of cumulative participants, several research modules integrated into MSc curricula and new research collaborations initiated. However, the proposed indicators are not fully adequate. Even though multiple joint articles in indexed OA journals and joint HEU proposals are measurable, the recognition indicators are based on planned activities and sectoral mentions rather than measurable scientific impact such as citations. --------- The proposal presents a credible pathway towards strengthening the coordinator's research profile, international visibility and institutional integration within the ERA. The sustainability approach through curriculum integration, Living Labs, training strategies and future collaboration is also convincing. These aspects are aligned with the work programme. The proposal includes indicators related to mobility, training, publications, networking and stakeholder engagement. However, the proposal includes a large number of KPIs and expected outcomes, some of which are generic and focusing more on qualitative aspects which makes it difficult to validate or measure in terms of impact. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination and communication measures are generally appropriate. However, their expected impact beyond the project duration remains only partially substantiated. External barriers are identified, including talent retention, gender imbalance, unstable funding and competition in EU funding. A shortcoming is that the mitigation measures remain relatively general and are not fully supported by concrete implementation pathways. Intellectual property and exploitation aspects are addressed in general terms. However, the exploitation pathway remains insufficiently credible for large-scale uptake, industrial deployment or policy integration beyond academic and public-sector research contexts. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication strategy is divided into purpose-driven campaigns: awareness, engagement and uptake, yet the content remains rather standard. Measures include a project website, policy briefs and international workshops. Impact is maximized by embedding outputs directly into institutional routines and future HEU proposals, ensuring sustainability. Several critical barriers are identified. Mitigation includes deploying a structured knowledge exchange program and establishing internal peer-review procedures for proposals. IP management is handled through the Consortium Agreement that follows HEU Model Grant Agreement rules. It clearly defines ownership, access rights and joint ownership for joint contributions. --------- The dissemination and communication measures are suitable and impactful beyond the project's duration. For example, the project targets a sufficient number of OA journal publications, multiple policy briefs and documented uptake cases, conference presentations, scientific workshops and several media mentions, demonstrating a clearly targeted approach. The external barriers to impact are not sufficiently analysed, e.g. the proposal does not sufficiently assess and analyse the risks of low private sector investment. IP management is not fully adequate, e.g. the proposal does not sufficiently explain how IP is managed between partners for the framework grounded on the Smart City Index. --------- The dissemination and communication measures are comprehensive and appropriately target scientific, institutional and stakeholder audiences through workshops, Living Labs, policy-oriented dissemination, publications and educational activities. The proposal also addresses sustainability through institutional embedding and long-term collaboration activities. External barriers related to stakeholder participation, institutional development and long-term sustainability are identified and mitigation measures are generally addressed and aligned with the proposed activities. IPR, Open Science and data governance aspects are addressed with clarity and are proportionate to the scope and objectives of the action. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101341111/CARE-FULL Spaces-20/07/2026-18:23:51 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is generally coherent and structured. However, the wide scope of activities across research, education, Living Labs, research management, gender measures and sustainability increase coordination complexity. Risks are identified and mitigation measures are proposed. Nevertheless, the operational interdependencies between research activities, Living Lab implementation, institutional transformation and long-term sustainability are insufficiently substantiated, which endangers effective implementation. --------- The plan consists of interlinked work packages, with the same partner leading all, while co-leading with advanced partners for specific domains. The timing is logical, supported by management and impact work packages. The distribution of resources is justified and coherent. The proposal identifies critical risks, including delays, loss of personnel and limited interdisciplinary collaboration. Mitigation includes hybrid formats for mobility, assigning deputies for key tasks and using a Steering Committee for corrective actions. --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured and logically timed. Work packages are interrelated with an appropriate distribution of resources. Risks relative to implementation are not fully described and mitigation measures are not fully adequate. Risks associated with low engagement by non-academic partners, including through the advisory board and Living Lab co-creation activities, are not sufficiently addressed. --------- The work plan is coherent and organised into interrelated work packages supporting research, training, dissemination, institutional reform and project management activities. The activities, milestones and deliverables are generally consistent with the project objectives and demonstrate an adequate development of tasks. Governance, coordination and quality-assurance structures are described with sufficient clarity, while the allocation of activities across the work packages generally supports the institutional-capacity-building objectives of the action. Implementation risks are identified and mitigation measures are generally addressed. However, they are presented with limited information both in the risks' description and proposed mitigations, which are relatively generic given the proposal's complexity and long-term institutional implementation. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The leading institutions provide generally appropriate support to the widening beneficiary. Roles and responsibilities are broadly coherent. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are generally aligned with the allocated tasks. Industrial and commercial involvement is limited. The proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate exploitation, large-scale implementation or broader uptake beyond academic, educational and public-sector research contexts. --------- The consortium is a balanced mix of technical excellence and strategic governance. The consortium features world-leading institutions. The leading institutions provide well-justified support to the widening partner. The partners' roles are solidly defined, for example, the coordinator provides the ground for experimentation through its campus and Living Labs, utilizing its position as a technical university with architecture and engineering expertise. Roles are precisely aligned with the partner strengths of each partner, from the focus on environmental justice to leadership in Open Science and design-driven methodology. The synergies of expertise ensures a sufficiently robust platform for long-term knowledge transfer and sustainable institutional change. Some potential for innovation and exploitation of results at a commercial level exists. --------- The consortium include internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The leading institutions provide the widening beneficiary with the necessary support to successfully implement the project. The partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. Industrial/commercial involvement is not sufficiently adequate for the exploitation of results. The project does not provide a list of industrial or commercial partners that may be targeted for exploitation of the project's results. --------- The consortium includes internationally recognised institutions with strong expertise in urban studies, environmental justice, urban resilience, governance and institutional transformation relevant to the objectives of the proposal. The partners provide the coordinator with substantial support through mentoring, mobility, co- supervision, training activities and methodological knowledge transfer aimed at strengthening its research and institutional capacities. Partner roles are coherent and correlated to the institutional capacity objectives of the proposal. The consortium demonstrates a good interdisciplinary expertise combining scientific, institutional, dissemination and innovation competences necessary to implement the action. The proposal appropriately addresses exploitation and institutional development through stakeholder activities and long-term collaboration. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101341111/CARE-FULL Spaces-20/07/2026-18:23:51 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101341111/CARE-FULL Spaces-20/07/2026-18:23:51 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T18:23:57 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340837 Proposal acronym: SusBioLoop Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Emerging sustainable technologies for circular bio-based polymer value chains Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 620,000 41.33% 620,000 41.33% 2 UNIVERSITAET GRAZ AT 440,000 29.33% 440,000 29.33% 3 IMPERIAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND UK 440,000 29.33% 440,000 29.33% MEDICINE Total: 1,500,000 1,500,000 Abstract: SusBioLoop main objective is to strengthen R&D excellence and institutional capacity in lignin and cellulose valorisation and design of higher-value bio-based materials, helping to position TalTech’s as an emerging, internationally connected excellence platform in circular bio-based polymer value chains with reduced environmental impact. SusBioLoop will implement knowledge transfer and capacity building programme with 2 internationally leading research institutions (UG and ICL): 4 rounds of staff exchanges, 4 thematic workshops, summer and winter school and co-supervision of 4 TalTech PhDs. Expected institutional impacts include the increase of PhD students (8 to 15), graduates (2–3 to 5), and international research (2 to 6) and industry (from 0 to 2) co-supevision by the project end. TalTech’s institutional practices will be improved in proposal development (min 5 submitted proposals), research and grant management (study visit to UG), research commercialization training by ICL Business School and establishment of 3–4 new industry collaborations leading to impacts of increase in annual number of research contracts with industry (2 to 4) and patent applications (1 to 2). The research component as an instrument of excellence-building, addresses a critical gap in the EU bioeconomy, where abundant lignocellulosic biomass remains underutilised due to insufficiently efficient, selective and scalable processing technologies. Development of mechanochemical (solvent-free) or solvent-minimised processing routes, improving control over lignin and cellulose functionalisation and establishing structure– property relationships for predictive material design, is enabled by partners complementary expertise in mechanochemistry, catalytic functionalisation and advanced characterisation. Sustained cooperation, long-term impact and enhanced visibility of TalTech within the EU bioeconomy and circular materials community will be achieved through dedicated DEC strategy. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 14.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340837/SusBioLoop-20/07/2026-20:10:46 1/5  1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The objective of the proposal to strengthen research and institutional capacity of widening institution in lignin and cellulose valorisation is clear and measurable. The existence of the hub/center makes the achievability of the proposal more convincing. The scientific objective is also in line with European Green Deal. The proposal will improve scientific research level and research management capacities of the widening beneficiary. The proposal enables the widening beneficiary to access international networks and industry, and contributes to the visibility and sustainability of both widening beneficiary and the center. Appropriate staff and researcher exchanges are foreseen. --------- The objectives are clear: strengthening the coordinator's scientific excellence, institutional and innovation capacity, and they are achievable. Appropriate targets are set for the outputs of the specific objectives, allowing measurement and verification. The objectives are pertinent to those of the Work Programme. The objectives combine scientific capacity building, access to complementary expertise and infrastructure as well as stronger research management capacity of the coordinator and long term visibility. Durable forms of R&I cooperation will be established through mobility, supporting skills transfer, joint problem-solving and strengthening of ties. The project embeds inward and outward exchanges into a broader model of research-driven, application-oriented collaboration between coordinator and the advanced partners. --------- The proposal aims to strengthen the Beneficiary's research excellence and institutional capacity in lignin and cellulose valorisation, positioning it as an internationally connected platform in circular bio-based polymer value chains, well aligned with regional momentum for structural change. The specific objectives are clearly defined, realistic, and verifiable, in excellent alignment with all Work Programme priorities. Indicators follow a realistic trajectory for strengthening the Beneficiary's position, with targets defined for long-term impact. The proposal demonstrates excellent methodology for research management capacity building, strategic cooperation between the Beneficiary and leading partners, and very well structured measures supporting participants. --------- The proposal aims to develop alternative methods to recover useful compounds from ligneous biomass using less solvents. The targets of the research component focus are mainly on a better understanding of the process, but they are not sufficiently specific to be quantified and verified, potentially compromising the good outcome of the project. The non-technical objectives are more clear, measurable and verifiable. Overall, the rest of the proposal is consistent with the work programme. An appropriate number of meetings and exchanges strengthens the strategic ties between the widening partner and the expert teams, while the research management is mainly expressed in a number of new contracts and patents and dissemination mainly in conference participation, but their exploitation is poorly quantified. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The methodology aiming for solvent free processing (mechanochemistry), functionalization of lignin structures and structure-property relationships needed to convert lignocellulosic materials into higher-value materials is planned, including identifications of the challenges in the present state of the art. However, planned mitigation measures are a bit general. Staff exchanges and joint technical workshops are appropriate for translation of skills and for realization of the objectives. Research management improvement task is insufficiently described. Open Science practices involving data management plan and open access publications are appropriately explained. --------- Project activities and methodologies are sound. Challenges are clearly identified including limitations on the state of the art and measurable mitigation measures are proposed. Staff exchanges for training, joint supervision, expert visits, workshops, and shared methods among the partners are clearly developed. State of the art is well discussed. The core research challenges addressed by the project are well described. Targets are given. The advances in the state of the art will come through ball milling, can reduces solvent demand and intensify processing. The methodology proposed is focused on knowledge exchange, capacity building and long term capacity development. The scientific strategy proposed, including its objectives and activities, are good, as is the capacity building. The establishment or upgrade of a dedicated research management function/team, is planned. Open science practices are correctly addressed and integrated in the project. --------- The methodology and proposed activities are sound and appropriate, with focus areas defined around bottlenecks in biomass valorisation and translated into complementary capacity-building areas, leveraging consortium strengths to support long-term capacity building of the Beneficiary. Challenges are well defined at the level of target products and regional development needs, with mitigation measures in place. Training activities for research capacity building are very comprehensive and address important research questions. Short-term visits are planned for staff and researchers to exchange research management and administrative practices. The research management work package includes excellent measures for capacity building, ensuring long-term impact through the establishment of a dedicated coordination platform for international networking, proposal generation, and institutional management. Open science practices are described efficiently. --------- The coordination and support measures address mostly the purely technical issues or the research component, and lack adequate risk identification and mitigation measures. Capacity building via exchanges and visits dedicated to complementary skills is efficient, but the actions that will be undertaken seem somewhat generic. The state of the art in relation to the chemistry and analytical methods is not sufficiently specified and therefore the effectiveness of the analytical methods is not clear. Research management is focused mostly on starting novel projects, proposals, and collaborations, but the development of of leadership skills and management tools is not sufficiently clear. The discussion of open science practices is limited to open access publications, and data management according to the FAIR principle without giving any details about the specific tools to be used. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340837/SusBioLoop-20/07/2026-20:10:46 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The project results will contribute to improving the institutional capability of the widening beneficiary for sustained participation in EU programmes, supporting growth in biomass valorization for new materials as alternatives to fossil-based inputs. The proposed key performance indicators (number of publications, international project submissions, collaborations with industry, h-index of researchers) are adequate for evaluating the impact of the project. --------- The project results are credible and of sufficient scale, ranging from institutional scale to industrial application after the project. The results are important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts, namely to raise the research profile and capacity for excellence, support development and strengthening the regional hub in wood biomass valorization, with relevance beyond the project's lifetime. Qualitative and quantitative indicators are presented to measure the expected impacts and they are credible: for example, publications in peer-reviewed high impact journals. Progress will be tracked by annual workshops or focus groups and staff exchanges. IP is correctly addressed. --------- The proposal defines several well-justified impact pathways with ambitious yet realistic results of sufficient scale to significantly strengthen the research excellence, visibility, and institutional capacity of the Beneficiary. Comprehensive quantitative and qualitative indicators are excellently structured and presented in comparison to current and post-project levels, clearly demonstrating sufficient advancement in research excellence, innovation capacity, and institutional development. The strong integration of research, capacity building, and strategic collaboration ensures durable impact, supported by the consortium's excellent coverage of research and management skills and the Beneficiary's well-positioned regional context for result exploitation. --------- The expected results are generally appropriate and realistic, with exception of the purely scientific outcome of the research component, where the main result is a somewhat generic ‘better understanding of the process’. In the other areas, the results are clear and realistic, such as the numbers of patents, manuscripts, project proposals etc. The proposed KPIs are suitable for qualitative and quantitative monitoring of the project’s research-related results but are inadequate for measuring the other aspects such as the research management, mobility and other. The limited growth in the average h-index over the duration of the project is not sufficiently ambitious. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination (open-access publications, conferences, PhD theses and MSc dissertations, workshops and training schools, policy brief) and communication measures are appropriate. Potential outside barriers to impact and their mitigation measures are adequately described. The IP management plans are adequate for a twinning proposal. --------- Suitable dissemination, exploitation and communication measures, impactful beyond the project's duration and scope, are proposed: policy and ecosystem dissemination through a policy brief, connect the project with regional and European innovation ecosystems. Consolidation of a hub as the coordinator's wood valorization platform offers visibility. Future Doctoral Network in wood, cellulose and lignin valorization increases knowhow. Barriers to the impact of the project that come from outside the project have been presented and are credible but proposed mitigation measures are insufficient. Intellectual property management and protection of results is well addressed, with the CA setting the rules. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are well designed and appropriately targeted to maximise impact beyond the project duration. Dissemination activities address scientific, industrial, policy, and wider public audiences, with scientific dissemination well specified. However, outreach to industry and policy communities lacks detail and is not fully developed. Communication activities are comprehensive and cover all main channels with defined levels of participation. The exploitation strategy is convincing and supports long-term capacity building and sustainable integration of results, with clear IP ownership and access rights established through the Consortium Agreement. External barriers are identified, with adequate mitigation measures proposed. --------- The dissemination, communication and exploitation plans are described in good detail with clear actions and measurable outcomes. The barriers to impact have not been identified and discussed sufficiently. The IPR management and protection plan is too concise, while it is not sufficiently clear who is responsible and what will be the actions of the individual partners. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340837/SusBioLoop-20/07/2026-20:10:46 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- While the work plan appears effective and well-structured, with proper interrelations, the timing information in the WPs text and the GANTT chart are inconsistent for several tasks. However, the tables in Part A and B are consistent. The research component is included in one single work package. The budget of this work package is 30% of the grant and 50% of this work package is allocated to the coordinator. The implementation risks are realistically described, and planned mitigation measures are reasonable. --------- The work plan is well-structured and logically timed for most of the work; however, no explanation is provided as to why the research activities begin relatively late. While the work packages appear to be logically interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources and consistency across the tables, the initiation of key activities, such as staff exchanges, workshops, and mentoring, is scheduled relatively late, which raises concerns. The research component is included in one single Work Package and its budget amounts to 30% of the grant and 50% of the budget of this WP is allocated to the coordinator. Risks related to implementation are satisfactorily described, and appropriate risk-mitigation measures are proposed. --------- The work plan is well structured and enables effective execution of the proposed actions, with clearly organised and interrelated work packages and appropriate allocation of resources and person-months. The research component is appropriately confined to a single work package, with separate projects designed to enable efficient transfer of research capacity from leading partners to the Beneficiary. Knowledge and innovation transfer is well structured with appropriate actions foreseen, though thematic workshops lack detail on participant numbers and justification for the allocation of travel resources. As all participants are required to travel to partner sites, the cost-effectiveness of this approach is unclear. The research management training component is excellently structured to support capacity building, proposal submission, and administration, with a well-developed strategic coordination platform for international networking and institutional management. The lump sum budget complies with the 30–50% rule, with more than 50% allocated to the coordinator. Key risks are identified, with appropriate mitigation measures proposed. --------- The work plan is subdivided into several distinct and interrelated work packages, each with a sufficiently detailed description of the individual tasks and their leaders and with an adequate timing of the tasks and with an adequate distribution of the budget. The research component is described entirely in one WP, and consists of main sub-tasks, mostly focused on the understanding of the chemistry of the process and the analysis of the nature of the outcomes. The 30/50 budget rule applies to this project. An adequate series or risks related to the implementation has been identified and mitigation measures are given to reduce the impact. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes two leading universities. The leading institutions have the potential to provide the necessary support to the Widening beneficiary. The partners' roles and responsibilities are clearly described and properly allocated. The advanced partners' expertise and infrastructure is complementary to that of the widening beneficiary and will help to improve its research and management capabilities. The planned industrial/commercial involvement for exploitation of results is adequate and realistic. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading research institutions. The proposal is very convincing in concretely showing how the leading institutions will provide the widening beneficiaries with the necessary support to successfully implement the project, namely: knowledge exchange, capacity building, and long-term partnership development. The consortium will transfer methods, protocols and good practices to strengthen the coordinators capacities and visibility. Concrete and measurable activities are planned for staff exchange between the leading partners and the coordinator, as well as mobility of researchers and sharing of infrastructures. The partner’s roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to project’s objectives. The consortium has all the needed expertise and infrastructure to carry out the tasks. The industrial/commercial involvement is very well explained with a task dedicated to it. --------- The consortium comprises renowned international research and higher education institutions with complementary research expertise and strategic interests. The leading partners provide excellent and complementary expertise in fractionation and functionalisation of lignocellulosic biomass, advanced characterisation, research training, and EU networking, all well aligned with the Beneficiary's research capacity development needs. Partner roles are well aligned with project objectives, with each leading partner responsible for distinct and complementary components of the joint programme. The leading partners provide excellent infrastructure to fulfil their allocated tasks. Target groups are efficiently selected to enable broad stakeholder outreach, and measures to increase industry involvement are very well structured and planned through the Beneficiary's strategic platform, supporting effective exploitation of results. --------- The consortium includes two leading partners in addition to the widening partner. The leading partners provide sufficient support to the widening partner to enable successful project implementation. Roles and responsibilities are clearly assigned, as reflected in the individual task descriptions. The consortium’s expertise is well aligned with the allocated tasks. However, industrial involvement is not sufficiently secured within the project, which may limit the successful exploitation of the project results. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101340837/SusBioLoop-20/07/2026-20:10:46 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340837/SusBioLoop-20/07/2026-20:10:46 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T20:10:52 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101339620 Proposal acronym: TALCEEET Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Boosting TalTech Capacity in Energy Efficient and Resilient Electrification Technologies Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 748,874.88 49.95% 748,874.88 49.95% 2 KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN BE 249,375 16.63% 249,375 16.63% 3 ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE CH 250,793.75 16.73% 250,793.75 16.73% 4 FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER DE 250,315 16.69% 250,315 16.69% ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG EV 5 Stichting Current OS NL 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 TalTechi Alalisvoolu Klubi EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total: 1,499,358.63 1,499,358.63 Abstract: TALCEEET will strengthen TalTech’s research and innovation capacity, institutional capabilities, and international standing in energy-efficient and resilient electrification technologies, with a specific focus on residential direct current microgrids. The project addresses a clear European and national need: buildings are rapidly electrifying, many key resources and loads are inherently direct-current, yet wider deployment of low-voltage direct current and hybrid architectures is still constrained by bottlenecks in protection, interoperability, validation, system integration, standards, and skilled human capacity. Through structured collaboration with KU Leuven, EPFL and Fraunhofer IISB, TALCEEET will combine scientific upgrading with stronger demonstrator-oriented and system-integration capability, alongside institutional learning, talent development, and ecosystem building. It will implement a focused joint research and validation programme, upgrade and validate a 350 V direct current microgrid testbed and establish a direct current Hardware-in-the-Loop verification lab at TalTech, strengthen doctoral and early-career training through exchanges, co-supervision, doctoral schools, and challenge-driven learning, and improve research management, innovation support, and valorisation routines, including IP screening, technology transfer, and follow-up proposal development. By the end of the project, TalTech will have stronger demonstrator-oriented research capability, a more durable European excellence network, improved support structures for research and innovation, and higher visibility in the field. TALCEEET will therefore support the Twinning objective of combining scientific excellence with sustainable institutional upgrading while helping close the research and innovation gap in widening European countries and contributing to more efficient, resilient, and future-ready building electrification. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence 101339620/TALCEEET-20/07/2026-17:14:30 1/5  Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The objectives are clear, measurable, and achievable, as the project aims to research and innovation capacity, institutional capabilities, and international standing in energy efficient and resilient electrification technologies. The pertinence of the proposal to the Work Programme is very good, because the proposal supports the twinning objective of combining scientific excellence with sustainable institutional upgrading towards becoming a leading EU actor in direct current (DC) microgrid research, education, and innovation. However the stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions is not sufficiently justified. The Novel R&I collaboration approaches are not sufficiently demonstrated. --------- The proposal objectives are moderately clear and generally achievable. The structure of the specific objectives is coherent and relevant to the project scope. However, the objectives lack sufficiently quantitative, measurable, and verifiable targets, making assessment of progress and achievement limited. In addition, regulatory and protection aspects are only marginally addressed and without a clear implementation strategy, which raises concerns regarding feasibility and robustness. The objectives are pertinent to the WP. The proposal improves the research excellence of beneficiary. The knowledge-transfer strategy and collaboration approach lack detail and show limited novelty. Researcher mobility is adequately addressed. --------- The objectives are realistic and appropriately ambitious to address scientific excellence, infrastructure, mobility, research management, and institutional visibility in a coherent way. However, it is not sufficiently detailed how they will be measured and verified, as it is generally described in the objectives. The proposal’s objectives are aligned with those of the Work Programme. They are strong in improving the research capacities and excellence of the widening beneficiaries, strengthening strategic collaborations, enhancing institutional reputation, and reinforcing the research capacities of the coordinator. However, the proposal does not provide sufficient detail regarding the novel R&I collaborations and researcher mobility activities. --------- The proposal’s objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable. The project aims to improve residential DC Microgrids research. The proposal's objectives are very pertinent to the Work Programme. They focus on improving research excellence via strategic collaboration with leading institutions, strengthening their research management capacities, and increasing their institutional reputation and attractiveness for researchers. The R&I collaboration approaches, and researcher mobility support are good and appropriate. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The methodology is sound. The project relies on a good methodological framework supported by coordination mechanisms. The coherent methodology for durable institutional change is organised around four mutually reinforcing pillars. The research capacity building and talent development is well presented. The research component WP is good, however the new ideas are not sufficiently demonstrated. The proposal well integrates the Open Science. The project will promote openness, research integrity, and knowledge circulation while maintaining a balanced approach to protection and valorisation, strictly aligning with Horizon Europe mandates and FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures are generally coherent and suitable for achieving the project objectives. The methodology is adequate. The research component is relevant and demonstrates sufficient ambition in demonstrator-oriented validation and system-level integration. Challenges and mitigation measures are underdeveloped. Several activities remain described at a conceptual level, with limited operational detail. Open Science practices are moderately appropriate. Indeed, the proposition includes open-access publications, FAIR data principles, repositories, and a planned Data Management Plan. However, the approach remains relatively generic, with limited detail on implementation, monitoring, and responsibilities. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, with a coherent link between the methodological pillars, activity mix, and stated challenges and mitigation measures. Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint schools, and outreach are adequate. The research component is used as a capacity-building vehicle for early-career researchers. However, the proposal does not provide sufficient detail regarding how the proposed new methods and benchmarks advance beyond the existing literature. The Research management improvement is robust, with a clear step methodology and concrete tools. However, it is not sufficiently detailed how the dedicated team would improve their management capacities. The proposal integrates adequate Open Science practices. However, the specific trusted data repository and the type of scientific journals are not sufficiently detailed. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. The challenges and mitigation measures are well explained and excellent, such as building capacity and standards. The project has a very good plan for staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences and many joint activities. However, the project has not fully described the joint summer schools. The research component work package, development and implementation of the upgrading capabilities in power electronics research is very good. However, the proposal does not fully explain how the innovative technologies will go beyond their current state of the art. The Research Management work package includes very good measures to improve the management capacities of the coordinator. The Open Science practices are adequately integrated. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339620/TALCEEET-20/07/2026-17:14:30 2/5  2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The scale of the result's impact is good. The credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes is very good, as the proposal aims to contribute to a wider impacts through a cumulative intervention logic directly linked to the barriers currently affecting DC research, innovation uptake, and deployment. The proposal adequately justifies how the suggested qualitative and quantitative indicators will contribute for achieving the expected impacts. The scientific output and collaborations are not sufficiently demonstrated to measure institutional recognition. The large-scale sustainable energy investments are not appropriately substantiated. --------- The credibility of the pathways is moderate and only partially aligned with the objectives. Indeed, the description of the pathways is superficial and not convincingly developed to achieve the expected results. The scale of the planned activities and partnerships is potentially adequate. Risks and mitigation measures to impacts are not sufficiently detailed. The proposal includes a set of quantitative KPIs. However, the KPI framework is only partially convincing, as the link between indicators and the actual achievement of long-term structural impacts is not always clearly demonstrated. Several targets are ambitious but lack sufficient evidence of feasibility, baseline benchmarking, or implementation methodology. --------- The project results are broadly credible, of substantial scale, and important enough to plausibly contribute to the expected outcomes and wider impacts of the Work Programme. The proposed indicators are generally adequate and well-structured to measure the main expected impacts. Scientific output is very strong, and IP indicators are adequate. However, some qualitative dimensions (especially “recognition” and long‑term investments) are not sufficiently detailed to measure the expected impacts. --------- The project results are very credible, sufficient, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme, and increased research and innovation capacities of the coordinator in the DC Microgrid innovation system research. The proposed indicators are adequate to measure the expected impacts, such as upgraded test beds and validated energy management. The recognition, pilot collaboration and investments are excellent for co- development opportunities. However, the target of the number of journal publications is too high for the project results. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination and communication measures are suitable. The target groups and their relation to the project are well described. The project clearly analyses the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project. The proposed proactive mitigation measures are appropriate and effective. The intellectual property management is clearly addressed. --------- Dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are well structured and multi-layered, covering scientific, educational, institutional, and outreach dimensions. Their long-term orientation is strengthened by a post-project roadmap for five years, supporting continuation of results, collaborative mechanisms, and institutional embedding of key outputs. Nevertheless, the concrete operational mechanisms ensuring sustained impact remain partly under-specified beyond this roadmap. The project identifies relevant external barriers but mitigation measures remain unclear, limiting clarity on how barriers will be effectively addressed. IP management is adequate. However, procedures remain insufficiently detailed. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are adequate to maximise the project’s impact beyond its duration. However, the proposal does not provide sufficient detail on how long-term sustainability will be supported through concrete resource commitments. The project provides a clear analysis of the key external barriers that may affect the achievement of its expected impact. However, the proposed mitigation measures are not described in sufficient detail. Intellectual property management and protection are adequate and explicitly addressed as an integral part of research management strengthening. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures and activities are overall appropriate. The target users are suitable. The exploitation route is well planned and excellent. The proposal clearly described and well analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and the proposed mitigation measures are very good and appropriate. The intellectual property management and related protection measures are appropriately addressed. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339620/TALCEEET-20/07/2026-17:14:30 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- Quality and effectiveness of the work plan is very good and designed to ensure capacity building to research the expected impact. The task are well scheduled and logical. Distribution of resources is consistent. The proposed Gantt chart demonstrates quality and efficiency of the work plan. The proposal demonstrates a good approach to risk management and outlines effective mitigation measures. --------- The work plan is adequately structured. Resource allocation is consistent with objectives, with a clear emphasis on WP1–WP4 over management tasks. However, the beneficiary carries a dominant operational burden, which may indicate an imbalance in execution responsibilities and increase dependency on the coordinator. The timing is realistic and justified through a logical three-phase structure: initial setup, intensive implementation, and consolidation. The description of the risks is generally adequate with the overall proposal. However, the mitigation measures remain relatively high-level and somewhat generic. --------- The work plan, risk management approach, and consortium composition are solid and demonstrate good compliance with the specific requirements of the Twinning call. The allocation of person-months and the lump-sum budget across partners and work packages is appropriate, with the Widening coordinator appropriately carrying the largest share of the effort. The work plan is clear and logically structured, with well-defined work packages, tasks, deliverables, and milestones that are closely aligned with the project objectives. The allocation of person-months and the lump-sum budget across partners and work packages is appropriate, with the Widening coordinator appropriately carrying the largest share of the effort. Risks related to implementation are identified and addressed. However, the proposed mitigation measures are not detailed described. The proposal doesn’t sufficiently address critical risks related to the involvement and engagement of market players. --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured, logically timed, work packages are interrelated, and appropriated. The distribution of resources for each WP and each partner is reasonable. The Work Package is well described. Each task has specified the task leader and contributors. This is excellent. The milestones and deliverables are clearly defined and suitable. The risks relative to implementation are clearly described. The mitigation measures are well explained and adequate. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes leading institutions in European research and innovation. The support from leading partners is very good and guarantees successful research capacity building. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are adequate in relation to the project’s objectives. The partners' expertise and infrastructure are very good. They are aligned with the planned tasks. The commercial involvement towards exploitation is appropriate. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading universities with good expertise in electrical engineering, power systems, doctoral training, and innovation ecosystems, fully meeting the requirement. The consortium provides comprehensive and complementary support to the Widening beneficiary across scientific excellence, doctoral training, innovation capacity, and institutional development. Roles are sufficiently defined and aligned with objectives, with WP leadership appropriately distributed. However, some partners bear a relatively high operational workload, indicating partial imbalance. Expertise matches tasks well ensuring good WP-level alignment. Direct industrial participation is limited. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research organisations. The support provided by these leading institutions is well defined, multi-layered, and directly targeted at addressing the identified gaps of the widening beneficiaries. The roles and responsibilities are broadly appropriate and well aligned with each partner’s stated expertise, and the partners’ competencies are consistent with the tasks allocated to them. Industrial and commercial involvement is adequate to support the exploitation of results, with a clear focus on ecosystem interfaces and early-stage valorisation rather than large-scale product development. However, the proposal does not provide sufficient details regarding the involvement or the characteristics of the participating industrial actors. --------- The consortium clearly includes internationally leading research institutions. The leading institutions provide excellent support to the widening beneficiary, which includes workshops, training, and mentoring, and networking. The partners' roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project's objectives. For instance, the leader of each work package has knowledge of relevant technology, academic experience, and skills to perform the tasks and to lead the work package. The consortium's expertise is well aligned with the allocated tasks. However, the proposal has not fully described the infrastructure, laboratories, tools and equipment. The project has a pilot plan with the industries. Thus, industrial involvement is adequate for exploitation of results. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101339620/TALCEEET-20/07/2026-17:14:30 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101339620/TALCEEET-20/07/2026-17:14:30 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T17:14:37 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340463 Proposal acronym: TWIN4CARE Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Twinning for Participatory and Interdisciplinary Methods in Trustworthy Intelligent Welfare Technology for Ageing Societies Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 572,053.75 38.14% 572,053.75 38.14% 2 FRANKFURT UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES DE 224,610 14.97% 224,610 14.97% 3 LUNDS UNIVERSITET SE 231,891.25 15.46% 231,891.25 15.46% 4 NORGES TEKNISK-NATURVITENSKAPELIGE NO 246,140 16.41% 246,140 16.41% UNIVERSITET NTNU 5 ITA-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO FI 225,297.5 15.02% 225,297.5 15.02% Total: 1,499,992.5 1,499,992.5 Abstract: The introduction of Intelligent Welfare Technology (IWT) - AI-enabled tools such as fall-detection systems, medication reminders, socially assistive robots, and decision-support applications - into European elderly care is outpacing the frameworks needed to shape these technologies together with the people who live and work alongside them. Whether IWT supports autonomy and dignity or undermines them depends less on technical properties than on how implementation is negotiated within complex socio-technical care contexts. TWIN4CARE addresses this challenge by developing and testing interdisciplinary participatory methods that enable care workers, older adults, and family caregivers to meaningfully shape trustworthy welfare technologies across institutional and home care settings. Coordinated by Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech), the project brings together four internationally recognised partners — Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Lund University, NTNU, and the University of Eastern Finland, each contributing complementary expertise spanning assistive technologies and inclusive architecture, human-centred design and ageing research, STS-informed responsible innovation, and gerontological social work and care ethics. Through coordinated staff exchanges, joint doctoral supervision, a thematically progressive INFORM–DESIGN–ACT–IMPACT workshop sequence, and two pilot cycles in Estonian care settings, TWIN4CARE will consolidate TalTech's existing strengths into a coherent interdisciplinary IWT research environment, strengthen its research management capacity, and establish it as an Estonian hub of Nordic-Baltic hub for participatory welfare technology research. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 14.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 5.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340463/TWIN4CARE-20/07/2026-19:37:30 1/7  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal presents the objectives excellently. They are introduced within a very well-described context, supporting their achievability. Each objective can be measured by means of thorough indicators accompanied by feasible estimates. The objectives perfectly cover the outcomes prescribed in the Work Programme, pursuing the improvement of the coordinator's research excellence and capacities by the proposed twinning exercise with four leading research institutions. --------- The proposal presents a clear overall objective focused on establishing a sustainable collaboration network between the coordinator and the advanced partners. It aims to strengthen the coordinator’s interdisciplinary research environment in welfare technology while fostering lasting connections with European research networks, increasing its international visibility and enhancing the profile of its researchers. The objectives are well defined, measurable, verifiable, and achievable within the proposed timeframe. The proposal’s objectives are highly pertinent to the Work Programme and address all expected outcomes, including strengthening research excellence and research management capacities. The proposal also provides a coherent pathway for achieving these objectives. --------- The proposal defines coherent objectives that are clearly linked to work packages, tasks, deliverables, milestones, and quantified indicators such as pilot cycles, joint publications, co‑supervised PhDs among others making them clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable, though some longer‑term impacts extend beyond the project duration. The objectives align well with the Twinning Work Programme by addressing improved research excellence of the widening coordinator, durable strategic collaboration with leading institutions, increased international visibility and researcher profiles, strengthened research‑management capacity, novel interdisciplinary R&I collaboration approaches, and increased inward and outward researcher mobility. --------- The proposal’s objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable and they complement each other very appropriately. The proposed indicators provided to measure achievement for each objective are reasonable. The proposal objectives relate very well to all main objectives of the Work Programme. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology 101340463/TWIN4CARE-20/07/2026-19:37:30 2/7  a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The methodological approach is perfectly sound and includes very appropriate activities, both for developing the research component and the research management and capacity building. The proposal thoroughly describes the state of the art, including a high number of references, identifying the current challenges and pointing out the advancements of the project. The research methodology is focused on participatory methods for co-designing AI-enabled welfare technologies, introducing an iterative approach with two pilots to achieve the research results. The research management and capacity building methods introduce several activities (e.g. workshops, expert visits, secondments, etc.) that successfully improve the management capacities of the coordinator, supported by the leading institutions. The gender dimension is very well integrated in the approach. Open Science practices and research data management are adequately considered as a core aspect of the methodology. --------- The proposal is generally sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. The capacity-building approach is well structured, combining workshops, joint activities, and collaborative research to support the project’s interdisciplinary and institutional development objectives. The proposal also demonstrates a strong and well-integrated gender and inclusiveness perspective in both the research content and planned capacity-building activities, while promoting inclusive interdisciplinary research environments. The identified challenges and mitigation measures are generally credible and aligned with the participatory nature of the project. A minor shortcoming is that the specific welfare technologies and concrete use cases to be tested remain only partially detailed. Open Science and ethics practices are appropriately integrated, including open-access dissemination, appropriate data management, and measures addressing informed consent and vulnerable participants. --------- The coordination and support measures are well designed and appropriate to achieve the objectives, combining clearly planned staff exchanges, expert visits, thematic workshops, joint summer schools, conferences, and structured mobility that are coherently linked across work packages. The research component is clearly confined to a single WP focused on validating and comparing existing participatory methods through two pilot cycles, advancing methodological state of the art without drifting into technology development; the gender dimension is addressed through participation design and researcher balance rather than method differentiation, which is a minor limitation. Research management capacity building is robust, structured assessments, proposal bootcamps, and plans to strengthen coordinator‑level support. Open Science practices are fully integrated through mandatory open‑access publishing, an open‑license toolkit, a FAIR Data Management Plan, and transparent data handling. --------- The methodology is sound and appropriate at a general level. There is a good number and diversity of useful activities planned: several exchanges and visits, workshops, summer schools, joint pilots, co-supervision of candidates, as well as dissemination and publication activities. There is a correct differentiation between research component and research management work packages, and it proposes to explore new ideas. The Research management will improve the capacities of the coordinating team. Open Science is well achieved with adherence through: open access publications, open access participatory methods toolkit under a Creative Commons license, and data following the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable policy. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340463/TWIN4CARE-20/07/2026-19:37:30 3/7  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The project results are very well associated with the expected outcomes of the Work Programme, following the project's objectives. The proposal conveniently identifies target groups interested in the outcomes to be achieved at the end of the project. Long-term, wider impacts are also sufficiently discussed, focusing on scientific, economic, and societal impacts that resemble those described in the Work Programme destination. Associated with expected outcomes and impacts, the proposal includes a very thorough set of quantitative and qualitative indicators, establishing feasible estimates for most of them. --------- The project results are credible, of appropriate scale, and likely to contribute to achieving the expected outcomes within the proposed project duration. The scientific, societal, and economic impacts are clearly described at both national and European levels, including the expected strengthening of the widening partner’s research excellence, international visibility, and competitive capacity. The proposal is well aligned with relevant national and European policy priorities, including Estonia’s long-term development strategy. The proposed indicators are clear and adequate to measure the expected impacts at both the research and institutional levels, including research outputs, dissemination, knowledge transfer, mobility, networking, and capacity-building activities. --------- The proposal outlines a credible and logical pathway to the expected Twinning outcomes, with results of appropriate scale, including validated pilot work, an open‑access toolkit, strengthened research‑management structures, sustained collaboration mechanisms, and joint proposal submissions, although longer‑term impacts such as funding success extend beyond the project duration. The indicators are adequate and clearly defined, combining quantitative targets for publications, mobility, proposals, and events with qualitative measures of institutional embedding, collaboration durability, visibility, and uptake. --------- The results can achieve the main objectives of the Work Programme with clear benefits to the coordinating organization and the methodology made available publicly will be also beneficial to other organizations at a wider international level. A good quantity of impact actions proposed. A shortcoming is that there is not so much said about how to measure the quality for each of the proposed impacts. Although there are some sentences about quality these are at a generic and aspirational way, without providing a way to objectively assess what 'excellent quality' means for the proposed impacts of this proposal. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination and communication strategy is very well thought out, successfully adapting measures and channels to reach the very well-identified target groups. However, the exploitation plan is insufficiently outlined, lacking details on how each partner will exploit the project's results, either individually or jointly. This is a shortcoming. Potential barriers to impact are clearly discussed, along with sensible strategies to successfully mitigate their effect. Intellectual property rights management is outlined in the proposal, including appropriate measures that will be further developed within the Consortium Agreement. --------- The proposal includes credible dissemination, exploitation and communication measures to support sustainability and continuation beyond the project duration, particularly through open-access outputs, institutional integration, and future collaborative funding plans. The proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the methodological, organisational, ethical, and sustainability-related barriers associated with participatory AI- enabled welfare technology research. The identified mitigation measures are generally credible and well aligned with the project activities. The proposal addresses intellectual property and knowledge sharing in a clear and appropriate manner. The main project outputs are planned as open-access resources under suitable Creative Commons licensing. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are appropriate and credible for achieving impact beyond the project duration, combining open‑access publications, an openly licensed participatory methods toolkit, policy and practice briefs, partner‑country dissemination, and a final summit that embeds results in academic, policy, and care ecosystems. External barriers such as regulatory complexity, stakeholder fatigue, and post‑project sustainability are explicitly analysed, with suitable mitigation through early ethics integration, existing stakeholder networks, advisory input, and follow‑on proposals. IP management is adequate for a Twinning, prioritising open dissemination with clear ownership, authorship, and background‑knowledge rules defined in the CA. --------- There is a good coverage of dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures addressing the main stakeholder groups: researchers, policy actors, care practitioners, local government representatives, older adults, family caregivers. There is a reasonable analysis of barriers and of adequate mitigation measures. Intellectual Property is considered in various sections of the project proposal, a shortcoming is that this is always at a generic level, so there is no specific Intellectual Property agreed before the project. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation 101340463/TWIN4CARE-20/07/2026-19:37:30 4/7  Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is very well structured work packages, including a central research work package as the methodological backbone of the project, with sound dependencies with other work packages. The timing of the tasks is perfectly aligned with these dependencies, and they are sufficiently described. There are sufficient elements to measure the project's progress in the form of deliverables and milestones, which are well integrated into the overall work plan. The resources to be committed to each work package are very appropriate and consistent with the requested budget for each partner. Critical risks are very well analysed in terms of their likelihood and impact severity, conveniently associating them with work packages and introducing very reasonable mitigation measures. --------- The work plan is effective, well structured, and logically timed. The work packages are strongly interconnected, with the research activities appropriately supported by complementary capacity-building, training, mobility, networking, research-management, and dissemination activities across the remaining WPs. The implementation approach is coherent and realistic, and the timing and sequencing of activities are well aligned with the project objectives and expected outcomes. The implementation risks are clearly identified. The proposed mitigation measures are generally appropriate and credible, particularly regarding interdisciplinary integration, stakeholder engagement, coordination, and long-term collaboration. A minor shortcoming is that some mitigation measures provide limited operational detail on implementation and monitoring. --------- The work plan is clearly structured by interrelated work packages with logical timing, progressive sequencing, and consistent allocation of person‑months and budgets across Part A, Part B, and the lump‑sum table, demonstrating good coherence and proportionality of resources. . Implementation risks are clearly identified, including interdisciplinary integration, stakeholder engagement, ethics, coordination, and sustainability, and are addressed through appropriate mitigation measures such as phased activities, established partnerships, governance structures, and continuous monitoring. --------- Planning is good overall, good and very well presented, with reasonable time allocations to tasks. The description of the WPs is consistent with the budget table. A shortcoming is that one work package does not produce any (declared) deliverables, although it does contain activities which lead to what could be deliverables. There is a reasonable consideration of risks and related mitigated actions as well as a work package including risk management. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise 101340463/TWIN4CARE-20/07/2026-19:37:30 5/7  a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes four leading research institutions that participate in the project's activities. The leading institutions provide their outstanding expertise not only for the research component but also for the capacity building of the coordinator. All partners have a clear role in the work plan, with each leading institution leading the research management and capacity building related work packages, while the widening coordinator leads the rest (i.e. research component, dissemination & communication, and project management). The consortium as a whole provides a high degree of expertise and complementarity to successfully achieve the project's objectives. Research infrastructures offered by each partner are very well aligned with the project's needs. The involvement of industrial stakeholders is adequately considered within WP6 tasks, fostering their engagement for a potential exploitation of the results. --------- The proposal includes at least two internationally leading research institutions with strong and complementary expertise relevant to welfare research. The leading institutions are well equipped to support the widening beneficiary, demonstrating recognised expertise and leadership across the required interdisciplinary fields. Existing collaboration networks provide a credible basis for delivering impact. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate, complementary, and sufficiently detailed, with responsibilities aligned to the project objectives and each partner’s expertise. The consortium demonstrates strong complementarity in expertise, infrastructure, interdisciplinarity, inclusiveness, capacity building, and mobility activities, well aligned to the tasks allocated to each partner. Industrial involvement is adequate considering the mainly non-commercial nature of the project outputs, with appropriate exploitation pathways. --------- The consortium includes several internationally recognised universities providing a strong critical mass of leading expertise for the widening coordinator. The leading partners offer concrete and well‑structured support through work‑package leadership, transfer of established practices, doctoral co‑supervision, and access to research infrastructures and networks, directly enabling the consortium to implement the project successfully. Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and aligned with the objectives, with each partner leading work packages that match their core strengths. The consortium’s disciplinary expertise and infrastructures are well aligned with allocated tasks across research, training, mobility, and management. Industrial or commercial involvement is described less convincingly and is considered as weakness. . --------- The consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project The partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks. Industrial involvement is not clear Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided 101340463/TWIN4CARE-20/07/2026-19:37:30 6/7  Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340463/TWIN4CARE-20/07/2026-19:37:30 7/7  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T19:37:37 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101341197 Proposal acronym: TalTech SPIN Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: TWINNING FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE IN ENGINEERING‑PEDAGOGY AND CHALLENGE‑BASED LEARNING Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 748,983.75 49.93% 748,983.75 49.93% 2 DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET DK 408,203.75 27.21% 408,203.75 27.21% 3 HAMEEN AMMATTIKORKEAKOULU OY FI 342,812.5 22.85% 342,812.5 22.85% Total: 1,500,000 1,500,000 Abstract: TalTech SPIN (Strengthening Pedagogical Innovation and Engineering‑Pedagogy Research) is a Horizon Europe WIDERA Twinning action that aims to strengthen TalTech’s research excellence and institutional capacity in engineering‑pedagogy research and challenge‑based learning. While Estonia has strong disciplinary engineering research, limited capacity in research‑informed engineering pedagogy constrains the systematic translation of engineering excellence into scalable skills, workforce readiness and long‑term innovation impact. TalTech SPIN addresses this structural gap by embedding engineering‑pedagogy research, research‑management uplift and international collaboration into TalTech’s institutional structures. The project brings together TalTech as coordinator with two complementary leading European partners: DTU Skylab (Denmark), representing a mature innovation‑hub ecosystem that integrates challenge‑based learning with entrepreneurship and technology transfer, and HAMK (Finland), a reference institution for Design‑Based Education embedded across engineering curricula. Through structured collaboration, mobility and a focused research component, TalTech SPIN transfers excellence in challenge‑based engineering education while building durable institutional capacity. TalTech SPIN implements a coherent capacity‑building methodology combining scientific skills development, early‑career researcher training, professional research‑management support and stakeholder engagement. Key activities include joint research and pilots in engineering‑pedagogy, strategic mobility and expert‑led training, consolidation of research‑management processes aligned with RM‑Comp, development of standard operating procedures, and the establishment of a dedicated TalTech SPIN Research Management Hub. Data‑driven monitoring, ethics, gender equality and responsible AI governance are embedded throughout the project. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101341197/TalTech SPIN-20/07/2026-21:49:09 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal defines clear and concrete objectives that are measurable, as they are supported by relevant indicators and verifiable targets. The objectives are pertinent and align well with the Work Programme, addressing research excellence, strategic partnerships with leading partners, enhanced reputation and staff profiles, and stronger research management via a dedicated hub. It also promotes innovative research collaboration through AI-supported tools and ensures significant researcher mobility through structured exchanges and training activities. --------- The objectives of the proposal are clear and they are measurable as well as achievable. All the objectives listed are pertinent to all those of the Work Programme, notably including improvement of university teaching to students and training of early stage researchers in writing better EU research proposals. --------- The proposal's objectives to enhance engineering education in the Widening country through synchronisation of challenge-based and design-based learning are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable. Overall, the proposal's objectives are pertinent to those specified in the Work Programme. They include improvement of the research capacity of the Widening beneficiary in engineering education, strengthening strategic ties through developing an AI model, and a very good plan for two-way researcher mobility. --------- The proposal´s objectives are clear. However, relevant indicators are not sufficiently provided, thus reducing credibility that they are properly measurable, verifiable, and achievable. Overall, the objectives are pertinent to those of the Work Programme. The scope to strengthen the coordinator by improving research capacities/excellence is adequately described. The proposal will support increased researcher mobility and stronger strategic ties between the Widening beneficiary and leading EU institutions, and it aims to improve the institutional reputation and attractiveness, as well as staff's research profiles and novel R&I collaboration approaches of the coordinator. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed methodology is sound and well-structured, combining staff exchanges, expert visits, workshops, and summer schools within a coherent capacity- building framework. Mobility, training, and institutional development are well integrated, and the dedicated research management work package is a clear strength. The research component is relevant and timely, including AI-supported and interdisciplinary approaches. However, it is not sufficiently clearly demonstrated how it advances the state-of-the-art beyond adapting existing models. Open Science practices are adequately integrated in the project, with clear commitments to open access, FAIR data principles, and the use of trusted repositories. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures. The research component is relevant, as are the measures aiming at developing the coordinator's research management capacity. Open science practices are explicitly and well integrated in the project, including open access publication of research data. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are overall sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives of the proposal. The challenges related to the methodology are clearly identified and the proposed mitigation measures address those challenges very well. The proposal to establish a dedicated engineering education support team leads clearly to a strengthened management capacity of the coordinator. However, the research component work package includes very limited information on the current state-of-the-art in engineering pedagogy so it is unclear to what extent it will be advanced through this project. The gender dimension and diversity aspects are appropriately addressed in the proposal. Open science practices are very well integrated in the proposal. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures, including a sound methodology, are overall well suited to deliver the objectives. Challenges related to the methodology and associated mitigation measures are well addressed. Knowledge transfer through staff exchanges, master classes, and workshops is basically described, but the scientific and technical baseline is not clearly provided. The research component work package is in line with the call. It focuses on authentic engineering‑education settings and is credibly supported by the proposed international collaboration. AI is part of the proposed research activities, but its robustness is not adequately discussed and justified. Measures to improve research management capacities of the coordinator are well addressed and convincingly described. Education is a strength of the proposal. Open science practices are adequately integrated and explained, in line with the EU open science policy. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101341197/TalTech SPIN-20/07/2026-21:49:09 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The project results are credible and of sufficient scale, with clearly defined outputs such as increased adoption of challenge-based learning, stronger EU project capacity, sustained collaboration with leading labs, and improved proposal success and visibility, all aligning well with expected impacts. Key performance indicators and target values are properly defined, offering a robust framework to measure impact and progress. Quantitative targets (such as publications, mobilities, staff trained, workshops) and baselines are provided, which is positive. However, there are some inconsistencies, such as unclear targets. --------- The project results are credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. Relevant key performance indicators, including number of publications, meetings, and trained staff members, are provided to measure expected impacts. --------- The project results are credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impact of the Work Programme. The results enhance excellence of the Widening institution in engineering education and its capacity for research-based pedagogical innovation. The proposed indicators to measure expected impacts are ambitious. They properly measure the key areas of the proposal, including scientific outputs, collaboration, exchanges, and national and international recognition. --------- The envisaged project results and the pathways to attain them are well described, credible, and of sufficient scale and importance to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. The proposed indicators to measure the expected impacts are overall sound and comprehensively described, including scientific outputs such as publications, shared datasets, and validated prototypes. However, investments and IP matters are not sufficiently disclosed. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are outlined but remain rather general, limiting their expected impact beyond the project’s duration. In particular, exploitation pathways are not fully detailed, reducing clarity on long-term uptake and sustainability. Barriers to impact from outside the project are not sufficiently analysed. Intellectual property management and protection are not fully described leaving uncertainty regarding ownership, access, and long-term use of results. --------- The proposed measures for dissemination, exploitation, and communication of the project results and activities are too generically described to be fully credible. Barriers to impact from outside are properly analysed, but relevant countermeasures are not sufficiently elaborated. The proposal discusses intellectual property management issues, but lacks sufficient details. --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are described very well. However, details on sustainability of these measures beyond the duration of the project are insufficiently addressed. The barriers to the project's impacts coming from outside the project, for example external travel constraints, or insufficient support from the industry or the public sector, are sufficiently analysed and the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate. Intellectual property management and protection are inadequately addressed, especially concerning research activities that include developing an AI model. --------- The proposed dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures and activities are well described and proportionate to the scale of the project. They are highly suitable and of sufficient quality. Target groups and audiences are well specified and very appropriate. Relevant policy, market, societal, and economic barriers/obstacles from outside of the project are insufficiently analysed. They are mostly identified on a basic level and do not fully reflect the overall scope of the project, and the provided mitigation measures are not convincing enough. Intellectual property management and protection are foreseen in the proposal, but details concerning foreground and background IPR are not sufficiently addressed and elaborated. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101341197/TalTech SPIN-20/07/2026-21:49:09 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The proposed work plan is effective, well-structured, and logically sequenced, with clearly defined work packages that are coherently interrelated and aligned with the project objectives. The progression from research and mobility activities to capacity building, institutionalisation, and impact ensures a logical flow over time. The allocation of resources to work packages is balanced and appropriate to support the planned activities and expected outcomes. The 50% budget cap for the research component work package is not clearly shown. Critical implementation risks are properly addressed and suitable mitigation actions are in place. --------- The presented work plan is of appropriate quality, including logical timing of work packages. Staff salaries are, however, not sufficiently well justified in the proposal. Resources are consistent across the tables in Part A and Part B of the proposal. The 50% budget cap is not clearly shown for the research component work package. Implementation risks are well identified. The suggested mitigation measures are, however, quite generic. --------- The proposed work plan is overall well-structured with appropriately interrelated work packages. However, there is too much overlap between some individual tasks extending over almost the entire duration of the project, which may reduce effectiveness of the work plan. Distribution of resources to work packages is appropriate and consistent across the proposal. The 50% budget cap for the research component work package is not clearly shown. Risks related to implementation of the project are very well addressed and very appropriate mitigation measures are proposed. --------- The proposed work plan is effective, well-structured and logically timed. The work packages are adequately described, interrelated, and sufficiently balanced, reflecting the workload of participants and planned activities. The tracking of the project's progress through deliverables and milestones is adequately ensured. The distribution of resources to work packages is consistent across the tables in parts A and B. Overall, the lump sum calculation is consistent with the work package description and cost estimation figures. The 50% budget cap is not clearly shown for the research component work package. A basic risk analysis is provided and corresponding mitigation measures are proposed. However, critical risks due to underperforming or leaving partners are not sufficiently well elaborated. Moreover, it is not fully clear how decision management and conflict resolution will be handled within the consortium management in case of disruptions. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading higher education institutions, who will provide relevant and well-structured support to the Widening beneficiary through knowledge transfer, training, and collaboration activities, enabling successful implementation. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and aligned with the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise is well aligned with the allocated tasks. However, the description of infrastructure and the specific researchers involved is not sufficiently detailed. Industrial and commercial involvement is considered, although the specific roles, contributions, and long- term engagement mechanisms of the relevant stakeholders is not described in adequate detail. --------- The consortium includes two leading higher education institutions providing both educational and innovation support of good quality to the Widening beneficiary. One of these partners provides their educational expertise and the other their expertise on innovation and entrepreneurship. Roles and responsibilities among the partners are well justified in relation to the project objectives. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. --------- The consortium includes two higher education establishments that are internationally recognised for their pedagogical research. They will provide excellent support to the Widening beneficiary to implement the project and enhance its capacity in challenge-based education. The partners' roles and responsibilities are fully appropriate in relation to the project's objectives. The consortium's expertise is well-aligned with the allocated tasks. Industrial involvement is well covered and will support exploitation of enhanced design-based engineering education methods resulting from the project. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading higher education establishments. The partners have sound and complementary expertise related to the relevant topics of the proposal. The leading institutions will provide the Widening beneficiary with the necessary support to successfully implement the project. All partners have a valid role and the capacity to fulfil that role in the project. The partners' responsibilities are appropriate and balanced in relation to the project´s objectives. The concrete contribution of each partner to each of the defined tasks is well detailed. The consortium´s expertise and infrastructure in engineering education are well aligned with the allocated tasks. The industrial and commercial involvement in relation to the exploitation of results is, however, inadequately elaborated. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101341197/TalTech SPIN-20/07/2026-21:49:09 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101341197/TalTech SPIN-20/07/2026-21:49:09 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T21:49:19 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340205 Proposal acronym: TripleWin Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Strengthening Research Excellence in Place-based Computing Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 719,700 47.99% 719,700 47.99% 2 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET DK 399,000 26.60% 399,000 26.60% 3 AALTO KORKEAKOULUSAATIO SR FI 381,056.25 25.41% 381,056.25 25.41% Total: 1,499,756.25 1,499,756.25 Abstract: TripleWin will strengthen TalTech-FINEST’s research excellence and research management capacity in Place-based computing through strategic twinning with the University of Copenhagen and Aalto University. Building on the FINEST Centre as an established cross-border research and innovation platform, the project addresses a clear excellence gap in frontier science while advancing an emerging field that is highly relevant to continuous urbanisation, the green and digital transitions, and the need to understand dynamic places beyond fixed administrative borders. The project will achieve this through a 3 year work plan structured around 5 complementary WPs. WP2 will identify excellence gaps and develop a joint Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) and long term collaboration roadmap. WP3 will strengthen TalTech’s research management capacity in line with RM Comp through needs assessment, staff exchange, mentoring, peer learning and an institutional toolkit. Building on this, WP1 will implement a dedicated research component with joint research actions, doctoral collaboration and a publication pipeline in Place-based computing. WP4 will support gender balance, early-career and international researchers, and inclusive participation across activities. WP5 will ensure sound coordination, open science, communication, dissemination, exploitation, impact monitoring and continuation planning. TripleWin is fully aligned with the Twinning call by combining strategic collaboration with 2 leading European institutions, a dedicated research component, strengthened research management capacities, increased mobility and structured long term continuation. It will deliver stronger scientific outputs and ERC pipelines, a practical institutional toolkit, stronger international attractiveness, multiple non-academic collaboration pathways, and wider spill-over within TalTech. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340205/TripleWin-20/07/2026-18:09:54 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) The proposal describes in excellent detail a clear set of objectives, motivated by an innovative research component. The objectives are ambitious yet achievable. Moreover, they are described in a way that makes them measurable and verifiable. The objectives are clearly pertinent to the work programme. They aim to strengthen and enhance the excellence and capacities of the widening partner so that they can fully contribute, alongside the leading partners, to the development of a novel and internationally significant research area. --------- The objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable, and are aligned with the Work Programme. --------- The objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable, with a coherent focus on strengthening the coordinator's research excellence and research management capacity in the selected field. The objectives are highly pertinent to the Work Programme, as they convincingly address stronger strategic ties with leading institutions, higher reputation and attractiveness, improved research management capacity, novel collaboration approaches, and researcher mobility. --------- The objectives are clear and mostly measurable, with a clear link between the excellence gap and the planned twinning actions. The proposal uses concrete indicators. The objectives are well aligned with Twinning. They focus on strengthening the widening coordinator's scientific profile in place-based computing, expanding long-term links, increasing mobility, and enhancing research management capacity. A shortcoming is that some ambitious objectives are partly outside the project's direct control. The concept of place-based computing is promising, but still quite broad, and to keep the research agenda sharply focused is insufficiently elaborated. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? The methodology's structure is straightforward and supports the objectives. The principle of connected phases, from the discovery of needs through to the delivery of solutions, is practical and sound. The activities suggested for each phase are appropriate, but lack sufficient elaboration. Moreover, in terms of its activities and outputs, the relationship between the discovery phase and the remaining phases is also not sufficiently elaborated. Open Science practices are well thought out and described in good detail. Suggested channels for open science outputs are appropriate. It is also a strength that the proposal considers privacy issues. --------- The fact that some of the institutions of the consortium have been collaborating for several years with another CSA project weakens the soundness of the methodology. Open Science practices are adequate. --------- The coordination and support measures are very well designed, combining exchanges, expert support, training, mentoring, strategic agenda-setting, strengthening research management, research collaboration, outreach, and inclusive participation measures. The methodology is coherent and appropriately addresses methodological challenges linked to interdisciplinary computational work. A shortcoming is that the concrete research strands and validation procedures are not fully specified at the proposal stage, leaving some dependence on later agenda-setting. Open science practices are well integrated, with credible measures for open access, responsible research data management, trusted repositories, licensing, early sharing of methods and results, and justified limits where sensitive data protection is needed. --------- The methodology is sound and well-structured around diagnosis, strategic agenda-setting, implementation, and long-term embedding. The combination of joint research, strategic research agenda, staff exchanges, peer learning, doctoral collaboration, summer/training school activities, and research management upgrading is appropriate for a Twinning action. The dedicated research management work package is a clear strength and uses the European Competence Framework effectively. A shortcoming is that the research component is described at a rather high level. The actual joint research actions, datasets, methods, and expected scientific outputs are not very concrete. The mitigation measures are relevant, but some remain generic. Open Science is adequately integrated (FAIR principles, open access publishing, Open Research Europe, data repositories, privacy-by-design), with limits on openness when personal or sensitive data are involved. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340205/TripleWin-20/07/2026-18:09:54 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? The results are described in excellent detail. The presentation of the links between the objectives and expected outcomes of the call, and how these links are reflected in activities and results, is clear. The achievement of the expected outcomes and impacts envisaged in the Work Programme is therefore highly credible. The proposal is convincing in its emphasis on the importance of the results to the widening partner and on the wider technical, social, and economic impacts. However, scale is not sufficiently elaborated. The proposed indicators are not sufficiently elaborated. While results are described in terms of, for example, short-term visits, the status of these elements as indicators is not clear, as the target values are insufficiently elaborated. --------- The project's results are credible and will contribute to the goals of the Work Programme. KPIs are defined, but they insufficiently cover the project activity list. --------- The pathways to outcomes and impacts are credible and important, with a convincing logic that spans from capacity building and joint research to a stronger scientific profile, international attractiveness, collaboration with external actors, and longer-term institutional uptake. The indicators are generally adequate and include relevant targets for scientific outputs, collaboration, mobility, participation, and institutional uptake. However, some indicators mainly measure outputs or participation and do not fully define baselines, measurement approaches, or responsibilities for broader reputation, attractiveness, and institutional transformation effects. --------- The impact pathway is credible and clearly linked to the expected Twinning outcomes. The proposed indicators cover scientific output, ERC support, mobility, doctoral collaboration, research management capacity, external partnerships, inclusiveness, and continuation planning. A shortcoming is that several impact indicators are ambitious and are not fully under the consortium's control. The expected contribution to non-academic uptake and investment is plausible but not supported by very concrete commitments from companies or public authorities. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? The proposal provides clear descriptions of target groups and appropriate channels to reach them. Dissemination and communication measures are appropriately tailored to the different target groups. The explanation of exploitation measures is convincing, given the nature of the project results. Routes to exploitation are appropriate. The proposal provides a clear, well-structured analysis of the barriers to impact. Mitigations are sufficient and effective. The IPR strategy of sharing by default is appropriate given the nature of the project results. The proposal also adequately provides alternative measures for management and protection of intellectual property, should the need arise. --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are described but lack implementation details. Barriers are analyzed, yet the mitigation measures are generic and insufficient. IP management for the scope of R&D tasks is covered but briefly. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are suitable and well-targeted, with appropriate audiences, channels, messages, and continuation routes for a Twinning coordination and support action. External barriers to impact are clearly analyzed, including sustainability, data access, stakeholder uptake, funding, and regulatory conditions, and the mitigation measures are adequate. Intellectual property management is adequately addressed, with a sensible distinction between openly reusable outputs and research-generated results that may require controlled handling, ownership, access rights, or protection. --------- The dissemination, communication, and exploitation measures are suitable for a Twinning project. The exploitation logic is realistic. The proposal identifies relevant external barriers to impact, and the long-term roadmap and continuation planning provide useful mitigation measures. However, some barriers are addressed at a fairly high level and remain open-ended, which weakens the credibility and specificity of the proposed mitigation measures. Intellectual property management is proportionate. The proposal correctly treats most outputs as strategic, scientific, or methodological, while leaving room for case-by-case protection of research- generated methods, software, data assets, or workflows if needed. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? The structure of the work plan is logical and consistent with the methodology. It provides effective support for achieving the objectives, particularly by prioritizing an understanding of the widening partner's needs. Work packages are well-designed, with appropriate activities. Milestones are appropriate and will ensure effective progress monitoring. The effort distribution described in the work plan is consistent with the budget tables. Risks are elaborated in excellent detail. Mitigation is well chosen and credible. --------- The work plan is structured in a suboptimal way. The allocation of other costs is unclear and the budget table contains some unclear information on the depreciation costs. Risks are clearly defined and mitigated. --------- The work plan is effective, coherent, and logically timed; the work-package structure, deliverables, and milestones appropriately support scientific, institutional, inclusion, management, and dissemination activities. Person-months and the budget are distributed across all partners and are proportionate to the planned tasks. Implementation risks are clearly described, and the mitigation measures are adequate, covering coordination, staff availability, output quality, participation, data access, uptake, continuation, and travel disruptions. --------- The work plan is coherent and logically phased across the work packages. The roles of the work packages are clear. The effort distribution is reasonable, with the coordinator receiving the largest share of person-months and budget, which supports the widening-coordinator logic. The implementation risks are clearly listed and cover coordination, effort, research outputs, uptake, inclusiveness, data protection, and travel. A minor shortcoming is that some mitigation measures are standard rather than specific, particularly for achieving high-end scientific outputs and wider institutional uptake. 101340205/TripleWin-20/07/2026-18:09:54 3/5  3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? The consortium includes leading partners with clear records of research and international research leadership, including in the chosen research domain. The leading partners provide the necessary support to the widening partner. There are already established links between the widening partner and one leading partner, which the proposal seeks to build on, and which provides a solid and effective foundation for the work proposed. Partner roles and responsibilities are well chosen and appropriately allocated. The partners in the consortium have the necessary expertise in the research domain to carry out the research component. The leading partners also have sufficient expertise and experience in the management and administration of research to perform their allocated tasks. The consortium already has the necessary infrastructure. --------- The consortium contains leading institutions. Leading institutions might provide the Widening beneficiary with the required support, yet the existing collaboration does not demonstrate this. Partner roles and responsibilities are appropriate. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks, yet some task allocations are not clearly justified. --------- The consortium clearly includes internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The leading institutions provide strong, concrete support to the widening beneficiary through mentoring, staff exchange, research management strengthening, strategic agenda-setting, supervision, and excellence- building activities. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate and well aligned with the project objectives, with a balanced distribution of leadership and contributions. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks, covering computing, human-centered methods, urban systems, research management, and innovation support. Industrial and commercial involvement is adequate for the exploitation logic, as the action mainly relies on ecosystem links and non-academic collaboration pathways rather than product commercialization. --------- The consortium includes strong, advanced partners, credible leading institutions. The leading partners provide relevant support: One partner leads the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda and inclusiveness work, while the other one leads research management and institutional capacity building. The roles are appropriate, the consortium is compact, and coordination is manageable. The expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the tasks. Industrial or commercial involvement is mainly indirect and future-oriented, so the exploitation pathway beyond academic and institutional uptake is less concrete. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No 101340205/TripleWin-20/07/2026-18:09:54 4/5  If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed, and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators are a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal, and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340205/TripleWin-20/07/2026-18:09:54 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T18:10:02 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340570 Proposal acronym: RAPID-RES Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Capacity Building in Mission-Oriented Applied Research for Rapidly Deployable Dual-Use Energy Solutions Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 673,812.5 45.06% 673,812.5 45.06% 2 KAITSEVÄGI EE 199,777.5 13.36% 199,777.5 13.36% 3 FORSVARSHOGSKOLAN SE 307,345 20.55% 307,345 20.55% 4 UNIVERSITETET I SOROST-NORGE NO 314,387.5 21.02% 314,387.5 21.02% Total: 1,495,322.5 1,495,322.5 Abstract: RAPID-RES (Rapidly Deployable Dual-Use Energy Solutions) addresses a critical gap in Europe’s ability to ensure resilient energy supply in crisis situations, including armed conflict, natural disasters, and large-scale infrastructure disruptions. Recent events have demonstrated that while many energy technologies already exist, their rapid and effective deployment remains limited due to fragmentation between operational needs, applied research, system integration, and procurement processes. The project will strengthen the research excellence and research management capacity of Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech) in mission-oriented applied research for dual-use energy resilience. Through a Twinning approach, RAPID-RES brings together leading European partners to transfer knowledge, methodologies, and best practices in system-level engineering, resilience-oriented validation, and innovation management. The project develops and institutionalises a structured methodology that connects crisis- response needs with deployable, procurement-ready energy solutions based on off-the-shelf technologies. This is achieved through a joint research component, staff exchanges, training activities, and mentoring, supported by strong engagement with operational stakeholders, including the Estonian Military Academy. RAPID-RES will deliver (i) a validated methodological framework for mission-oriented applied research, (ii) a pilot concept for rapidly deployable dual-use energy systems, and (iii) strengthened institutional capacities in research management, innovation support, and international collaboration. In parallel, the project will contribute to the development of a national dual-use innovation pathway in Estonia. By bridging the gap between research and real-world deployment, RAPID-RES will enhance Europe’s preparedness and resilience, while positioning TalTech as a competitive actor in dual-use energy research within the European Research Area Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340570/RAPID-RES-20/07/2026-21:32:57 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The objectives are clear, measurable and verifiable through defined outputs, including capacity-building, mobility, publications, proposals, research-management tools and institutional workflows. They are achievable within the project duration. The objectives are pertinent to the Work Programme: they address improved research excellence of the Widening beneficiaries, strategic ties with leading institutions, the coordinator’s reputation and staff profiles, research-management capacity, novel collaboration approaches and inward/outward mobility. However, several objectives are formulated mainly through activity/output targets, with limited baselines for understanding qualitative institutional change. --------- The proposal´s objectives are well defined, sufficiently measurable and verifiable via concrete indicators and achievable within the time frame. A minor shortcoming is that some objectives remain relatively broad and strategic in nature, particularly objective 2 and objective 4 in Part A. The objectives are pertinent to those of the Work Programme. --------- The proposal’s objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable. The objectives are highly relevant to the Work Program, as they credibly address improved research capacities and excellence of the coordinator, stronger institutional capacity and research management, and stronger strategic collaboration with the leading partner institution; the proposal significantly contributes to increasing the Coordinator’s researcher mobility through onsite exchanges, visits, and training activities at the Partner Institution and these well-designed mobility actions will foster valuable knowledge transfer, deepen collaboration, and strengthen the Coordinator’s research capacity and international exposure. This is excellent. --------- The objectives are clearly stated and are associated with measurable and verifiable metrics. The objectives are ambitious yet not excessively so, thus making them achievable. The objectives are pertinent to and address all the perspectives of the work programme, in particular: research excellence, strategic ties with leading institutions, institutional reputation, research management capacities, novel R&I collaboration and researcher mobility (inwards and outwards). 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed measures are very good and cover the main Twinning mechanisms: exchanges, secondments, expert visits, training, workshops, summer school, mentoring, proposal development, outreach and research-management capacity building. The methodology links needs, technology landscape, modelling, validation, supply-chain analysis and institutional learning, and the research component is placed in a dedicated WP. The research-management component is sufficiently explicit. Challenges and mitigations are identified, although some rely on general measures such as workshops, consultations and institutional alignment. Open Science is adequately integrated through FAIR principles, open access, repositories, a DMP and controlled access for sensitive data. However, the gender dimension is treated mainly as participation balance and inclusive practice; the proposal does not explain whether sex/gender or diversity aspects affect scenarios, training, user needs or stakeholder engagement. --------- The proposed activities and the methodology framework (including concret methods, frameworks and a pilot concept) are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. The methodology appropriately integrates scientific, organisational, and operational dimensions. It is clearly described how the dual-use energy resilience pilot concept advances the state-of-the-art in mission-oriented applied research. Open Science practices are adequately integrated through out the work packages. --------- The proposed methodology is sound and highly appropriate for the delivery the objectives. Targeted trainings, staff exchanges, mentoring, summer schools, and conferences are well planned and fully appropriate to ensure effective project delivery. The research component work package is well designed, clearly aligned with the project objectives, and introduces original and innovative approaches that advance the state of the art. The integration of a gender dimension further enhances the scientific quality and societal relevance of the work. The proposal adequately integrates Open Science practices. --------- The methodology is sound and is credibly explained. The support measures are comprehensive and appropriate to deliver the specified objectives. The research component is well-designed and addressed in a great level of detail. However, gender is addressed only in terms of gender equality and the proposal does not adequately justify why the gender perspective is not taken into account in the research. In addition, while research management activities are appropriate and comprehensive, they are targeted at academic and administrative staff and do not clearly mention a dedicated team, and challenges related to the methodology are not clearly addressed in the proposal. These are shortcomings. Open science practices are appropriately addressed in the proposal, and publications will be deposited in open access repositories. Data management will be aligned with FAIR principles. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340570/RAPID-RES-20/07/2026-21:32:57 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The pathways to impact are credible and aligned with the expected Twinning outcomes, linking research excellence, international collaboration, research management, innovation support and institutionalisation. The planned results are of sufficient scale and importance to support improved capacity and visibility of the Widening beneficiaries. The indicators cover scientific outputs, collaboration, mobility, training, proposals, policy outputs and institutional methods. However, several indicators remain delivery-oriented and lack baselines or target values for outcome quality, such as improved publication quality, recognition, funding success, uptake of methods or long-term institutional performance. --------- The expected results are well described on a short and long term basis and are credible to achieve the expected outcomes. In particular the demonstrator-oriented research approach focuses on integrating and validating existing technologies and addressing the full innovation chain. The proposal lays out quantitative and qualitative indicators which are adequate to measure the expected impacts. The use of the proposed indicators is monitored by an implemented Steering Board. --------- The project results are highly credible, sufficiently ambitious, and important for contributing to the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Program. They are well aligned with the proposal’s objectives, and the roles of the partner institutions are clearly defined and appropriate for delivering the expected results. The collaboration between excellent partners and the coordinator is coherent, valuable, and well suited to maximizing impact. The proposed indicators are highly relevant and adequate to measure the expected impacts. Staff exchanges and mobility activities, joint scientific publications, trainings, and stakeholder feedback are appropriate indicators for capturing scientific, collaborative, and societal impacts in a credible and meaningful way. --------- The proposal clearly and convincingly explains the pathways how the various activities will lead to outcomes and then to impact to fulfil the work programme requirements. The scale and significance are credibly demonstrated through appropriate metrics and targets. The proposed metrics are clearly identified and are associated with both short term and long term targets resulting in a robust mechanism for measuring the impact. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are suitable and include scientific dissemination, professional networks, policy communication, stakeholder events, website, webinars and reusable training/material outputs. The KERs are clear and linked to exploitation pathways. External barriers are identified, including technology evolution, ecosystem fragmentation, limited funding, limited industrial base and brain drain, however some mitigation measures remain generic because they rely on stakeholder engagement, modularity and institutional embedding without clear fallback actions or decision owners. IP management is adequate, with a Consortium Agreement, background/result ownership rules, access rights and a balanced approach to openness and protection. --------- The dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are suitable and impactful beyond the projects duration and scope on an EU level. This is strengthened in particular by he development of a Dissemination and Exploitation Plan and a long-term institutional strategy and action plan. The proposal addresses barriers to its impact and mitigation measures well. However, the description of the mitigation measures for external barriers remains on a very broad level and lacks concrete details. Intellectual property management is described very well. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are well designed, credible, and highly suitable for maximising the project’s outcomes and impacts. Planned networking activities, conferences, workshops, seminars, websites, and videos provide a strong basis for broad visibility, uptake, and long-term impact. The project has clearly identified and analyzed the external barriers to impact, including political, economic, and market-related factors beyond its control. The proposed mitigation measures are clear and strengthen the credibility of the impact pathway. Intellectual property management and protection are clearly and appropriately addressed through a coherent strategy, ensuring that outputs can be protected, and exploited in line with Horizon Europe rules. --------- The proposal gives an unstructured and incomplete outline of the planned dissemination and communication measures, as well as providing some targets in relation to publications and presentations. However, it does not provide sufficient detail to properly evaluate the planned activities. This is a shortcoming. The exploitation plan is properly addressed and several KERs are presented. Barriers to impact are sufficiently analysed and suitable mitigation measures are proposed. IPR management is outlined and will be subject to a signed agreement by partner organisations prior to the start of the project. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340570/RAPID-RES-20/07/2026-21:32:57 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is effective, well structured and logically timed. The WPs are interrelated, with WP1 feeding capacity building, research-management improvement, institutional pathways and dissemination. The distribution of PMs and resources is appropriate for the scale and type of action, and the budget is broadly consistent with the activities. Risks are described across the main implementation areas and include likelihood, severity and mitigation measures. Shortcoming: some mitigations are not sufficiently operational, especially for stakeholder engagement, uptake of recommendations and sustained exploitation, as they rely mainly on workshops, consultations, alignment and follow-up proposals rather than concrete contingency actions. --------- The proposal´s work plan is generally effective, coherent, and logically well structured with regard to time and budget allocation. In particular outputs of Work Package 1 are linked into the activities of the other work packages.The budget for work package 5 is relatively high in comparison to the other work packages and the allocation of staff effort. There is a lack of explicit detail explaining the cost drivers for the work package. --------- The work plan is highly appropriate, well structured, effective, and logically timed. The work packages are clearly interrelated, and the allocation of person- months, budget, and time is appropriate, consistent, and well balanced across the Lump Sum table, Part B, and the budget table in Part A. The risk management plan is credible and well considered. Critical risks and mitigation measures are clearly identified, realistic, and appropriate, demonstrating a strong and convincing approach to implementation. --------- The work plan is excellent and presented in a good level of detail, and the interrelationships between the work packages are clearly demonstrated. An appropriate list of deliverables is provided and milestones occur throughout the project lifetime facilitating progress monitoring. The resources allocated to the work packages are in line with their objectives and are consistent in the various tables. The risk assessment exercise is very good, and a number of risks are identified and have been assigned likelihood and severity. Risk mitigation measures are appropriate. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes advanced institutions with relevant expertise; their international leading status is credible for the proposed field, although it is not strongly evidenced through comparative indicators. The leading institutions provide appropriate support through mentoring, training, mobility, co-leadership, governance and policy inputs. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate: the coordinator leads institutional embedding, the Widening partner contributes operational context, and the advanced partners provide complementary methodological and domain expertise. The expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks, although infrastructure descriptions remain general. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions. The leading institutions provide the Widening beneficiaries with the necessary support although the partner institutions have no leading but just supportive tasks. The coordinator clearly leads all Work packages. The partner´s roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the projects objectives. The consortium´s expertise and infrastructure is well aligned with the allocated tasks. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading higher education establishments, bringing strong credibility and added value to the project. The leading institutions provide robust and effective support to the Widening beneficiaries, creating a solid foundation for successful project implementation and capacity development. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are well defined, balanced, and fully appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives. The capacity of each participant is convincingly demonstrated, and the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are very well aligned with the allocated tasks. The commercial involvement is appropriate and well positioned to support the exploitation of results. --------- The consortium is very strong and includes internationally recognised universities which enjoy an excellent reputation. The leading institutions have the required skills and expertise to provide the necessary support to successfully implement the project. In particular, they possess expertise in energy systems, sustainable technologies, defence, security, and crisis management research. The roles and responsibilities of all partners are clearly explained and appropriate in relation to the project objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are sufficient to undertake the allocated tasks. There is no industrial or commercial involvement since the proposal does not intend to commercialise any results. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101340570/RAPID-RES-20/07/2026-21:32:57 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340570/RAPID-RES-20/07/2026-21:32:57 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T21:33:04 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101339426 Proposal acronym: LEXMINE Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Legal EXcellence for MINing-region transition governancE Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 749,999.25 51.26% 749,999.25 51.26% 2 MARTIN-LUTHER-UNIVERSITAT HALLE-WITTENBERG DE 375,002.25 25.63% 375,002.25 25.63% 3 UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM UK 338,017.25 23.10% 338,017.25 23.10% Total: 1,463,018.75 1,463,018.75 Abstract: MiMining regions across Europe face urgent, legally complex transitions governed by fragmented, poorly documented multi-level frameworks. TalTech's Department of Law has emerging legal-technology capacity but lacks the critical mass and comparative expertise in just-transition governance needed to lead internationally in this field. LEXMINE is a Twinning action that addresses this gap by building sustained research excellence at TalTech through structured partnership with two internationally leading institutions: Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU- JTC, Germany) and Durham University (UK). Capacity-building is the spine of LEXMINE. Through five new graduate and executive education courses, fifteen staff exchange visits, co-supervision of at least three PhD and post-doctoral projects, two Summer/Winter Schools, and joint development of follow-on proposals, TalTech acquires the competences, networks, and institutional infrastructure to lead international research on legal frameworks for just transition. The three partners bring deliberately complementary profiles: TalTech's law-and-technology expertise, MLU-JTC's institutionalised transition-governance research embedded in an active lignite region, and Durham's international sustainability-law framing, ensuring genuine knowledge transfer rather than parallel working. A joint pilot research project serves as the integrating demonstrator: The partners collaboratively produce a Toolkit for Auditable Mining Transition - structured procedural templates enabling accountable, reviewable decision-making - validated with practitioners in Estonia, Germany, and England, covering early, advanced, and post-transition stages respectively. By the end of the 36-month project, TalTech will be established as a recognised European centre for just-transition law, with a 50% increase in high- level publications, at least three follow-on Horizon proposals submitted, and toolkit adoption commitments from mining-region authorities. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101339426/LEXMINE-20/07/2026-16:41:42 1/6  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal provides clear objectives that are accompanied by indicators that enable them to be measured and verified. The objectives are achievable. The proposal's objectives are well aligned with the objectives of the work programme and include improved research capacity at the coordinator, increased reputation of the partners, novel R&I approaches and especially increased research mobility. The proposal provides insufficient detail on the strengthening of research management capacities; this is a minor shortcoming. --------- The objectives are specific and sufficiently formulated; they are achievable and measurable. The proposal's objectives are credible regarding the aspects of improvement of research capacities/excellence at the coordinator, how it will develop stronger strategic ties between the institutions, and foresees increased researcher mobility. However, the objectives are insufficiently detailed on how the project will contribute to a higher institutional reputation and increased attractiveness, how it will strengthen the staff research profiles and research management capacities of the coordinator, and how the proposed objectives constitute a novel R&I collaboration approach. --------- The proposal's objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable. The proposal's objectives are in the line with the work programme in that they improve research excellence for the widening beneficiary, increase strategic ties with leading institutions, strengthen institutional reputation and research management capacities, include novel R&I collaboration approaches, and increase researcher mobility. --------- Project objectives are very clear, sufficiently ambitious and very well supported by a needs analysis identifying the institutional and structural strengths and gaps the project proposes to respond to. The proposal’s objectives are sufficiently measurable, verifiable, and achievable. The proposal is very pertinent to the work programme's objectives. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The project methodology is very well presented and the proposal clearly demonstrates how this method will deliver the project's objectives. The research project provides the core as it develops a methodology that can be used throughout the project; it is based on previous collaboration and provides an innovative approach. The steps that will be taken to carry out the research are well addressed and sensible. The interrelationship between the work packages is strongly embedded in the methodology. The projects' research governance is structured well. Staff exchanges are well considered. Open science practices are well integrated and explained in the proposal. --------- The proposed activities are relevant and sufficiently detailed. The research component is detailed and relevant. However, the proposal does not convincingly detail how methodology and proposed activities will improve the research management capacities of the coordinator. Also, the challenges and mitigation measures arising from the methodology are not sufficiently presented. Open science practices are adequately integrated. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are elaborate, sophisticated, and well presented in the proposal. They are suitable for delivering the planned objectives, including staff exchanges, different training events, conferences and summer schools. The research component work package is appropriate for the nature of the project. Similarly, a research management work package to improve the management capacities of the coordinator is also included. It is unclear which challenges are taken into account in relation to the activities and methodology, and which mitigation measures are being proposed. Open Science practices are adequately identified, and are appropriate for the project. --------- Co-ordination support measures are very clearly presented at all levels and appropriate. They are clearly underpinned by an analysis of the methodology proposed to address the project objectives and a good justification as to why this is appropriate. The proposed activities are well explained and planned in line with project objectives. They reflect convincingly the involvement of the partners in knowledge transfer, research development, research management and capacity building. The research component work package is central to the overall methodology. Challenges and mitigating measures for coordination and support measures foresee some structural limitations that are clearly analysed and mitigated via the project strategy. Open Science practices are well integrated into the project. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 3.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101339426/LEXMINE-20/07/2026-16:41:42 2/6  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The proposal presents clearly defined expected outcomes that are accompanied by targets and target indicators. The impact beyond the project is also addressed well and is clearly related to the work programme. The proposal\s target audiences are clearly identified. The indicators presented are mostly quantitative and are adequate to measure the expected impacts, but the proposal does not sufficiently address the methodology by which these are to be measured. This is a minor shortcoming. --------- The project results are credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the work programme. The gaps in the coordinator that the project intends to address are well identified, and the strategy to achieve impact is credible. The activities are proportionate to the project's scale and cover the expected outcomes and impact of the work programme. The proposal provides suitable indicators to assess the contributions to the expected outcomes. --------- The envisaged project results are impressive for the scope of the project. However, it remains unclear how the planned transferability of experiences from one jurisdiction to another will be achieved, especially since there is usually a combination of national, European, and international laws at play and considering that not all partners are based in the EU. This constitutes a weakness of the proposal. Quantitative and qualitative indicators are not presented sufficiently clearly, and the approach to evaluating the proposal's impact is therefore not sufficiently clear. --------- Expected results are clearly set out, credible and sufficiently supported by a project specific and comprehensive pathway to impact. Expected outcomes are of good scale and scope, and sufficiently important for the main beneficiary and its scientific partners. Expected and wider impacts are systematically set out to cover all expected outcomes across categories. Proposed indicators are sufficiently tangible, measurable and achievable to assess impact efficiently and comprehensively. Indicators are sufficiently developed to measure scientific performance, collaborations, recognition and capacity development both in qualitative and quantitative terms. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination, exploitation and communication are well addressed in the proposal. The centrality of dissemination activity is explained well, and sufficient detail is provided on exploitation and communication activity. The impact beyond the project's duration and scope is sufficiently well addressed. The proposal does not sufficiently engage with the barriers to its impact and therefore also does not adequately deal with mitigation measures to approach these. Intellectual property management is addressed and described well. This is a strength in the proposal. --------- The suitability and quality of the communication, dissemination, and exploitation measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts are good. However, the communication activities are limited to the project's duration. The project does not provide sufficient detail on external barriers to the project´s impact, and corresponding mitigation measures. Intellectual property management and protection are sufficiently considered. --------- The dissemination and communication measures are excellent. They cover a wide range of different channels and platforms, where the project results will be made accessible to the scientific community, policy-makers, as well as the wider public. Exploitation measures include various templates, teaching, and follow-on proposals will ensure impact beyond the project's duration. It is not sufficiently clear which external barriers exist and which mitigation measures the project proposes, which is a shortcoming. The proposal does not provide sufficient detail about the measures that will be implemented to manage and protect intellectual property. --------- Dissemination target groups are very well defined with good reference to those reachable via partners and wider groups, including primary and secondary target groups. Indicators are sufficiently provided across measures and target groups. Exploitation measures are well identified and linked to the key exploitation results. How the project results will be used beyond project duration is well addressed, in a tangible and realistic manner for the main beneficiary of the action. Communication measures are sufficiently developed and supported by clear indicators or clear messages per target group. The proposal does not sufficiently identify barriers to impact and proposed mitigating measures are not sufficiently developed. Intellectual property management and protection is adequately considered. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339426/LEXMINE-20/07/2026-16:41:42 3/6  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is effective and well-structured. The timing of the research component work package, and others that will draw on its findings, is not sufficiently co- ordinated so that validated research findings can be disseminated. Resources are allocated well and are aligned with the proposed budget; a clear explanation is provided of the proposed purchase costs. The research component is included in a single WP and budget rules are met. The risk analysis is overly generic and does not provide sufficiently specific mitigation measures. This is a weakness. --------- The quality and efficiency of the work plan and the appropriateness of resources overall are very good. The proposed work packages are structured in a suitable way, and the activities and outputs of each work package are clearly described and relevant to the proposed project. The schedule of the work packages and tasks is realistic. The milestones and deliverables identified are appropriate for effective monitoring of the project's progress, and their means of verification are suitable. The resources assigned to the work packages are aligned with the work to be carried out. The research component is contained in a single work package. Risks associated with the implementation of the project and mitigation measures are not sufficiently identified, in particular regarding the partnership coordination and the uptake at the institutional level. --------- The work plan provides appropriate detail and is clear about how work packages are interrelated and scheduled. The distribution of resources across work packages is clear and consistent with the budget. The research component is included in one work package and budget rules are complied with. Risks relating to implementation and mitigation measures are identified. However, they are insufficiently clear and detailed; it is therefore unclear what specifically is proposed, which is a shortcoming. --------- The work plan provides a very good and logically timed structure of activities. Work packages are well described and interconnected. The distribution of resources in person-months across work packages is clear based on specific tasks each partner will be involved in, and their contribution to work package leadership, milestones and deliverables. The research component is included in one work package and budget rules are complied with. A good number of risks relating to the implementation of the project are foreseen, with expected and realistic mitigation measures planned. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise 101339426/LEXMINE-20/07/2026-16:41:42 4/6  a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes two sufficiently leading research institutions. The advanced institutions will provide the coordinator with the necessary support to implement the project, partly also based on pre-existing bilateral collaboration that is already in place. The roles and responsibilities of the partners are addressed well in the proposal and are well aligned with the project's objectives. The expertise and infrastructure of the partners are well aligned with the allocated tasks. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading research institutions. The partners provide the Widening beneficiary with the necessary support through the different activities to implement the project. Partners' roles and responsibilities are appropriate to achieve the objectives, and the allocation of roles and responsibilities is appropriate and consistent with the project's objectives. Each partner's expertise is well aligned with the allocated tasks. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading institutions in the project's area of focus. The support to be provided to the Widening beneficiary is excellent and will ensure successful implementation of the project. Partners' roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project's objectives. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. The proposal does not adequately consider industrial/commercial involvement in the project, which is a shortcoming. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading research institutions. Both leading research institutions provide to the Widening beneficiary with well-targeted support to successfully implement the project. There is strong alignment between partners' assigned roles and the degree of their contribution. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are adequate for the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with their involvement in the project. Industrial and commercial involvement is adequate for exploitation of results. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) 101339426/LEXMINE-20/07/2026-16:41:42 5/6  Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101339426/LEXMINE-20/07/2026-16:41:42 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T16:41:49 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340523 Proposal acronym: ACT-TWIN Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: ACT-TWIN: Human-in-the-Loop Immersive Simulation Centre of Excellence for Socio-Technical Systems Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 749,532.5 50.05% 749,532.5 50.05% 2 UNIVERSITEIT ANTWERPEN BE 249,262 16.64% 249,262 16.64% 3 EESTI KUNSTIAKADEEMIA EE 248,748.75 16.61% 248,748.75 16.61% 4 AALTO KORKEAKOULUSAATIO SR FI 250,025 16.70% 250,025 16.70% 5 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY CORPORATION JP 0 0.00% 0 0.00% THEUNIVERSITY OF TOKYO Total: 1,497,568.25 1,497,568.25 Abstract: ACT-TWIN addresses a core weakness in European innovation: strong scientific excellence is not efficiently translated into adoptable socio-technical solutions, competitive technologies, and broader societal impact. This gap is especially visible in deep-tech and digital domains, where fragmented translation pathways and weak human-centred validation slow uptake. The project strengthens TalTech’s capacity for interdisciplinary human-in-the- loop (HIL) validation, immersive simulation, and demand-driven knowledge valorisation through the ACT (Applied Creativity & Technology) Living Lab framework. Rather than establishing a fully operational centre during the project period, ACT-TWIN builds the organisational, methodological, and international collaboration foundations for its long-term institutionalisation. The project integrates engineering, creative practice, and socio- economic analysis in a repeatable build–test–improve model focused on cognitive digital twins, XR validation environments, and virtual humans. Its outputs include reusable validation methods, pilot demonstrators, an operational blueprint, and a Tech-Asset Core, strengthening scientific excellence, international networking, and long-term innovation capacity at the Widening Partner. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 10.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340523/ACT-TWIN-20/07/2026-20:01:33 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- In general, the proposal defines clear and achievable objectives, structured around measurable and verifiable core pillars linked to concrete outputs. However, the proposal is only partially aligned with the institutional ambition of the objectives, as they do not fully address the organisational and partnership-related changes envisaged. Overall, objectives are pertinent to those of the Work Programme. However, the relevance of the benchmarking missions outside EU is not sufficiently motivated, particularly regarding how their outcomes contribute to the objectives. --------- The objectives are clear and pertinent to the Work Programme, yet they exhibit several issues. While KPIs like PhD co-supervisions or mobility actions are verifiable and appropriate, not all of the indicators are. Moreover, some objectives exhibit high external dependency on "problem owners": for instance, if industry engagement is shallow, the validation scenarios remain speculative rather than verifiable, and therefore difficult to achieve. --------- The objectives are S.M.A.R.T., well-articulated and balanced. The proposal demonstrates strong alignment with Twinning objectives, as the letters tend to confirm. The proposal explicitly refers to research excellence, reinforcing strategic links with leading international partners and institutional bodies. It builds robust research management capacities, introduces novel R&I collaboration frameworks and promotes researcher mobility through structured secondments and mentoring schemes. The intentionality to bridge academia and innovation ecosystems expands beyond conventional mechanisms, reflecting mature understanding of challenges and opportunities. --------- Overall, the objectives are pertinent and well aligned with the Work Programme. However, the proposal provides only limited justification of the rationale underpinning these objectives, and it does not clearly articulate how they derive from a coherent strategy to strengthen research excellence. The approach to measuring their achievement is sufficiently developed, with clear quantifiable target values for the key performance indicators. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- Although broadly relevant to developing the Lab framework and strengthening interdisciplinary socio-technical validation capacity, the methodology remains too conceptual. Several training and mentoring activities are mentioned, but exchanges, visits, workshops, events, outreach activities, targets, participants and outputs are not clearly specified. Additionally, the intervention logic also relies on insufficiently demonstrated assumptions, including limited cross-sector cooperation. Research management component is not properly addressed, as the proposal does not clearly describe the establishment of a dedicated team at the coordinator. Moreover, the proposal does not sufficiently explain how innovation will be identified and supported, or which concrete actions will ensure post-project sustainability of the Lab framework. Challenges and mitigation measures are not satisfactorily addressed. Open Science practices are addressed but not fully embedded into the methodology, and the proposed “Quadruple-Helix IP framework” is not sufficiently defined. --------- The proposal features a sound interdisciplinary, pilot-driven methodology using iterative build-test-improve cycles within a Lab framework. The quadruple helix is innovative in this context, but it is not appropriately applied since there is a notable lack of enough involvement from some actors, such as civil society, or policymakers. The proposal lacks clear grounding, being detached from reality with insufficient enough empirical focus and rigor. Overall Open Science is integrated fairly, with relevant mentions of FAIR principles and sharing open assets like code and models. However, these plans remain generic and lack strong commitments with regards to openness. The proposal does not address sufficiently open licensing possibilities. --------- The methodology is well presented and aims at delivering its objectives through coordinated and capacity-building actions. It includes staff exchanges/secondments, mentoring, expert visits, joint research pilots, workshops, and outreach activities. The differentiated nature of actions plays a consistent and operationalised strategy for effective knowledge transfer. Additionally, the Lab framework aims at validating and fostering the integration among HIL simulation, digital twins, and XR. Diversity, and inclusivity are explicitly addressed with balanced participation tracked through quality management mechanisms. Good focus on challenge mitigation strategy by ensuring AI system robustness is determined by reproducible pipelines, audit logs, and the EU Act human protocols. The proposal provides a thorough and proportionate focus on Open Science, committing to be "as open as possible, as closed as necessary". --------- The methodology and proposed activities are described at a general level, which limits their credibility and soundness in achieving the stated objectives, in particular with regard to raising the research profile of the coordinating institution and strengthening its research management capacity. Key components of the methodology lack sufficient detail. For instance, the proposal does not adequately position the research activities and expected contributions within the current state of the art, which limits the justification of their novelty and added value. In particular the research component remains underdeveloped, and its scope and role within the project are not clearly defined. Open Science practices are addressed at a very generic level, and are not sufficiently tailored to the specificities of the proposed approach. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 3.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340523/ACT-TWIN-20/07/2026-20:01:33 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The proposed results are credible, sufficiently scaled and relevant to the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. The defined impact pathways are credible and logically structured around research capacity, international collaboration, knowledge valorisation and institutional sustainability. However, the correlations between the core methodological outputs and Quadruple Helix IP framework, ecosystem partnerships and follow-up proposals are not clearly demonstrated. The proposed indicators are broadly qualitative and do not enough clearly address outcomes and impacts, baselines, targets, or verification measures. --------- Overall, the project outputs are credible and fairly appropriate to achieve the impacts expected in the Work Programme, especially regarding the coordinator. However, there are not enough clear strategies defined to ensure a systemic regional spillover beyond that institution. Mentions on “ecosystem partnerships” remain ambiguous. There is a good amount of quantitative indicators, which sometimes are overly ambitious (e.g. mobilities) but for the most part they remain still ambiguous. --------- The expected results are credible, sufficiently scalable, and strategically relevant, addressing a structural European challenge by connecting actors that are generally siloed, e.g. academia, problem owners, and others. Key results focus on a differentiated range of outcomes from pilots and reusable tech to Knowledge Transfer and Doctorates, and from partnership to spin-off. The proposal provides a solid quantitative framework covering scientific output, IP governance, and ecosystem engagement. The proposal has still some non duly justified or ambitious KPIs, for instance, for investors engagement, SME co-development agreements, or progression. --------- The project results, as well as their expected scientific, economic and societal impacts, are described in rather general terms, and their importance is not sufficiently demonstrated in relation to the expected outcomes of the Work Programme. The credibility and scale of the proposed impacts are not fully demonstrated. In addition, the proposed quantitative and qualitative indicators are insufficiently developed and lack enough clear target values, which limits the possibility to adequately measure the achievement of the expected impacts. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- In general, dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are broadly suitable and potentially impactful beyond the project’s duration. However, some measures remain generic. The planned submission of joint grant proposals is relevant but insufficiently aspiring, while dissemination activities lack clear ambitious indicators, targets, and verification measures. Post project impact is also somehow underdefined, particularly regarding responsibilities and success criteria. The proposal does not adequately analyse barriers to impact and related mitigation measures. IP management is addressed in generic terms. --------- Overall, dissemination, exploitation and communication are tackled fairly, albeit in a generic manner and with several issues. There is a lack of sufficient meaningful and measurable indicators. In particular, when described, they are often too conservative (e.g. publications). Communication does not include enough engagement metrics. Exploitation remains speculative without a clear commitment to a strategy, and lacks detail of a clear specific engagement mechanism. The barriers to impact are not appropriately covered. The IPR management is generic and fails to tackle sufficiently the implications of managing open access and open assets. --------- The project dissemination and exploitation measures are well-structured and reaching beyond the project timeline via e.g. policy briefs, open science repositories, and innovation pathways including licensing and spin-off creation. However, the strategy remains predominantly oriented towards academic and early-stage innovation audiences, with limited mechanisms for reaching other relevant stakeholders at scale. External barriers are addressed incrementally through engagement tools and ecosystem partnerships. IP management is adequately covered through the Quadruple Helix Framework, balancing open science with commercialisation. --------- The dissemination, communication and exploitation measures are described at a rather general level, with target groups not enough clearly identified and actions lacking sufficient detail. The proposal does not convincingly demonstrate how these measures will be sustained beyond the project’s duration, which limits the credibility of the expected long-term impact. The proposal neither sufficiently analyse external barriers that may hinder the achievement of the expected impacts, nor clearly defines appropriate mitigation measures. Intellectual property management is addressed only in generic terms, without sufficient detail on protection strategies. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340523/ACT-TWIN-20/07/2026-20:01:33 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is broadly structured into relevant work packages, and the deliverables, milestones and resource allocation are generally appropriate and consistent. However, the proposal does not include an enough clear visual overview showing the timing, sequencing and interrelation of the work packages, tasks and other relevant elements. In addition, the duration of individual tasks within the work packages is not clearly specified. Mitigation measures for some risks are not properly addressed. For example, the proposed mitigation for the risk of failing to submit the planned joint grant proposals is not sufficiently targeted to that specific risk. --------- Overall, the work plan is appropriate for a proposal of this size and the tasks. However, there are several issues. The timing s not always duly justified, e.g. concluding capacity building before the project’s pilot demonstrators or sustainability strategies, contradicts with the objective of long-term institutional transformation. In addition, the lean management effort is not fully demonstrated to be sufficient, generating some uncertainty regarding the complex logistics involved in high-frequency international mobility and multiple moving parts among partners. Some personnel efforts are not adequately demonstrated. Research activities spans multiple WPs. Budget caps not clearly shown Overall, the list of risks is fair, but the mitigation measures are often not well described. In general, they provide generic or circular measures, without really addressing the cause. --------- The work plan is very well-structured and positively organised across several interrelated work packages covering the full project lifecycle. Clear objectives, roles, and timelines are defined for each work package, with strong interdependencies ensuring research outputs feed into training, capacity building, and ecosystem engagement, while maintaining overarching governance and quality assurance. Person-months are proportionately distributed, with the coordinator appropriately holding the largest share. Research, validation, twinning, and training account for the largest share of effort, with dissemination and sustainability ensuring continuity beyond the core activities. Budget reflects a lean, personnel-focused implementation model. Implementation risks are clearly identified and adequately mitigated in the risk register, demonstrating awareness and mitigation vision and covering among others methodological, operational, and governance dimensions with proportionate responses assigned to specific work packages and partners. --------- The work plan is structured into several work packages, which are generally well described and include clearly defined deliverables and milestones. However, the interrelations between work packages are not sufficiently detailed or justified, which limits the overall coherence. The distribution of resources is appropriate and consistently presented across the different tables in the proposal. Risks related to implementation are clearly identified, and the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate and credible. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes at least two advanced EU partners, a local design partner, and a non-EU associated partner. The leading institutions provide the widening beneficiary with the necessary support to successfully implement the project. In general, the partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project objectives. However, the involvement and added value of the non-EU partner are not sufficiently justified. The consortium’s expertise is broadly aligned with the allocated tasks. However, the infrastructure is described only in general terms. Industrial and commercial involvement is only partially demonstrated. Some mechanisms are referenced, but not described in sufficient detail. --------- The consortium includes at least 2 appropriate international leading institutions. They are considered appropriate to provide the support required for this project. The roles and responsibilities are in general appropriate and match the objectives. The consortium expertise is very good and aligned with the tasks. There is not enough industrial involvement, or a clear way to appropriately involve industry, despite the narrative involving it. --------- At least 2 partners are internationally recognised with active roles in the European R&I landscape. The partners are complementary in terms of competences and mission alignment, covering the full innovation value chain from fundamental research to applied validation and knowledge valorisation. The consortium is Northern European oriented, which may reflect strong regional similarities and may present some limitations in broader European industrial diversity. This is partially mitigated by the presence of a non European associated partner, enriching the consortium with benchmarking opportunities that extend beyond the European context. Roles are well distributed and non-overlapping across design research, engineering and simulation, knowledge transfer, and global benchmarking. The lack of stronger formalised industrial co-development partnerships since initial states limits the exploitation/commercial potential. --------- The consortium includes at least 2 internationally leading research institutions, as well as other additional partners. Overall the partners provide the necessary support to implement the project, although the rationale for the inclusion of the associated partner, particularly with regard to its role in global benchmarking activities, is not convincingly demonstrated. Moreover, their complementarity regarding their expertise, as well as other potential overlaps among partners, are not sufficiently discussed. The proposal does not fully demonstrate that the participating institutions possess the necessary infrastructure to effectively carry out the planned activities and achieve the project’s objectives. Scope of the application Status: Yes 101340523/ACT-TWIN-20/07/2026-20:01:33 4/5  Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340523/ACT-TWIN-20/07/2026-20:01:33 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T20:01:39 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101341021 Proposal acronym: TWINRES Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: TWINNING FOR A RESILIENT DIGITAL SOCIETY: INTEGRATING CIVIL PROTECTION AND VITAL SERVICES Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 608,187.5 40.59% 608,187.5 40.59% 2 TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE KOLN DE 335,937.5 22.42% 335,937.5 22.42% 3 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA IT 321,540.73 21.46% 321,540.73 21.46% 4 BORYS GRINCHENKO KYIV METROPOLITAN UA 87,625 5.85% 87,625 5.85% UNIVERSITY 5 ANROMIND OU EE 144,927.39 9.67% 144,927.39 9.67% Total: 1,498,218.12 1,498,218.12 Abstract: TWINRES will strengthen the scientific excellence and innovation capacity of Tallinn University of Technology IT School (TalTech) in Resilient Digital Society through collaboration with Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Metropolitan University, and Anromind. The project addresses the gap between civil protection systems and the continuity of vital services, shifting TalTech’s research focus from digital state studies to socio-digital resilience. Building on Estonia’s strong digital governance ecosystem and TalTech’s expertise in digital technologies and e-governance, TWINRES will enhance research capacity through staff exchanges, summer schools, hackathons, scientific bootcamps, and joint interdisciplinary research. The project will strengthen the NextGen Digital State Research Group in four connected dimensions: critical infrastructure, governance, enabling technologies, and trust. It will focus on cascading failures across digital and vital service systems, behavioural dynamics during crises, and risks linked to AI-driven disinformation and cyber threats. TWINRES will also strengthen strategic cooperation with academia, civil protection actors, public administration, and civil society, creating a durable European collaboration environment and supporting future joint initiatives, publications, and funding applications. In parallel, the project will improve TalTech’s research management capacity through RM Comp-aligned training, proposal mentoring, funding intelligence, and more structured support for EU project preparation and coordination. By integrating technological, governance, and societal dimensions into a common resilience framework, TWINRES will develop new interdisciplinary R&I approaches for vital service continuity and civil protection preparedness, while strengthening TalTech’s position in resilient digital society research. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.25 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101341021/TWINRES-20/07/2026-19:52:40 1/6  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal's objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable, being excellently sustained by a clear description with clear and strong justifications. The proposal's objectives, as described, are fully pertinent to those of the Work Programme as regards the improved research capacities of the widening beneficiary, the stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiary and leading institutions, a higher institutional reputation and attractiveness, and staff research profiles of the coordinator, the strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, novel R&I collaboration approaches, and the increased researcher mobility. --------- The objectives are clearly formulated, realistic and measurable. However, some indicators lack adequate baselines to assess achievability. The proposed increase in the scholarly index is insufficiently substantiated, while targets for joint publications across departments are not adequately grounded. This is a shortcoming. Research capacity and excellence are well addressed. The proposed activities will strengthen ties within the consortium and enhance institutional reputation. Research management capacities are convincingly reinforced through structured activities aligned with the Research Management Competence framework and supported by an experienced partner. A novel R&I contribution and clear increase of mobility for researchers at all levels further strengthen the proposal. --------- The proposal presents clear, coherent and well-structured objectives. Objectives are achievable. The objectives are pertinent to the Work Programme. Strengths include strong alignment with Twinning goals, robust measurability, and integration of capacity building, networking and reputation-enhancing actions. Some objectives rely on effective integration of highly interdisciplinary components which may pose moderate risk. The proposal combines exchanges, training, and collaborative activities to support researcher mobility, but its limited scale may reduce long-term impact. This is a minor shortcoming. Research management capacity-building is strong and structured, though lasting effects depend on better institutional embedding and dedicated roles. --------- The proposal's objectives are achievable and are clearly described. Very good and precise KPIs are provided. Therefore, they are measurable and verifiable. These objectives are pertinent to those of the Work Programme and are covering all expected aspects of the call, including a research component. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed activities and the described methodology are excellent to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures as regards the staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, summer schools, hackathon, the research component, and research management work packages, improving the management capacities of the coordinator, including upgrading a dedicated team. The Open Science practices are excellently integrated, considering the specificity of the domain by full open access to publications, research outputs complemented by interpretations, selected simulation methodologies in open platforms, and open collaboration through the Open RDS Wiki. --------- Staff exchanges, training, workshops, and summer schools are well designed and sufficiently diverse, combining short- and mid-term mobility activities. However, the proposal does not sufficiently address the dependence on active participation by civil protection actors given their operational constraints. This is a shortcoming. The research component is well structured, advances the state of the art, and adequately integrates the gender dimension. Nevertheless, activities involving sensitive critical infrastructure data and experimental research using biological and AI agents lack sufficient methodological detail, which is a shortcoming. Research management capacity building is adequately structured and supported by a specialised consultancy partner and a reusable Proposal Development and Mentoring Portfolio. Open Science practices are adequately integrated and substantiated. The Open RDS Wiki is an innovative and practically useful tool tailored to the project's subject matter. --------- The proposal demonstrates a coherent and well-structured methodology that is well aligned with its objectives. The coordination and support measures are appropriate and mutually reinforcing. The research component is sound and ambitious, with clear roles for partners and integration of gender aspects where relevant. Open Science practices are well integrated, with commitments to open-access publications. The proposal clearly plans staff exchanges, expert visits, trainings, and workshops through dedicated activities, showing good structuring of capacity-building measures. It also includes a specific Work Package for research, ensuring integration between research and training actions. The methodological ambition and interdisciplinarity may pose coordination risks, and some outputs depend on access to sensitive data and stakeholder engagement, requiring careful management. This is a minor shortcoming. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate. Challenges and associated mitigation measures related to these objectives are not precisely defined but the methodology and dedicated actions are carefully defined for all aspects (staff exchanges, research management, etc.). This is a minor shortcoming. Open Science principles are correctly included. However, intellectual property rights are only briefly considered. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101341021/TWINRES-20/07/2026-19:52:40 2/6  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The project results are fully credible, of excellent scale, and extremely important to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. The proposed quantitative indicators are very adequate to measure the expected impacts. However, the qualitative indicators are not sufficiently clearly described. This is a shortcoming. --------- The proposal adequately aligns its activities with the expected outcomes, and the relevance of the research topic to current European policy priorities, particularly the CER and NIS2 directives, provides a credible basis for the proposed impact pathways. However, the positioning of the framework as a tool for civil protection authorities and policymakers is not sufficiently supported by clear mechanisms for implementation and uptake. This is a shortcoming. The proposal presents a reasonably balanced set of indicators. However, several indicators remain insufficiently focused on actual impact. In particular, indicators related to the uptake of the framework by civil protection authorities or its integration into policy processes are not clearly defined, which constitutes a shortcoming. --------- The proposal presents credible and well-articulated pathways linking activities, outputs and impacts, clearly aligned with the expected outcomes of the Work Programme. The planned results are of sufficient scale and relevance. The impact indicators are appropriate, combining quantitative targets with qualitative measures. These indicators are suitable to capture scientific output, collaboration intensity, institutional visibility and capacity building. Some longer-term impacts (e. g. reputation growth, sustained collaborations, future funding success) depend on post-project follow-up and external factors, and IP or investment-related impacts are addressed only indirectly. This is a minor shortcoming. --------- The project results are well identified and are credible. They are of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. Quantitative but also qualitative indicators are provided. Overall, expected impacts will be measurable with ambitious targets. However, the KPIs are not all consistent in the proposal (for example, concerning the publications or social media followers) and there are some overlaps among some of them (for example on the research proposals submitted). This is a shortcoming. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are excellent and impactful beyond the project's duration and scope. The project barriers to its impact that come from outside the project are clearly analysed, and the proposed mitigation measures are fully appropriate. Intellectual property management and protection are very adequate and excellently considered. --------- Dissemination and communication measures are well structured, appropriately targeted, and support long-term sustainability and network consolidation beyond the project. However, exploitation pathways are inadequately presented: integration of results into education and training lacks sufficient concrete actions. This is a shortcoming. Relevant external barriers are adequately identified. However, mitigation measures for rapidly evolving AI regulations are only partially addressed. Geopolitical instability affecting one partner is a foreseeable risk that is not fully anticipated. This is a shortcoming. Intellectual property management is adequately addressed, but governance arrangements for jointly developed outputs are not sufficiently elaborated. --------- The dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are coherent and well designed, with strong emphasis on visibility, rebranding and integration into future research and teaching, supporting sustainability. However, exploitation pathways rely mainly on follow-up projects and policy uptake, with limited concrete mechanisms for long-term investment or implementation, representing a shortcoming. IP management is addressed at a basic level, with ownership remaining with generating partners and protection considered where relevant, but without a proactive or strategic exploitation approach. This is a shortcoming. --------- Proposed dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are suitable. Targets are ambitious enough to be impactful beyond the project's duration, particularly with regard to strengthening research capacity. Furthermore, there are some exploitation activities that support this impact beyond the project. Main barriers to the project's impact are analysed with identification of credible and appropriate mitigation measures. Intellectual property management is not sufficiently addressed. The issue is generally considered but there is no specific task to cover it which is a shortcoming. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101341021/TWINRES-20/07/2026-19:52:40 3/6  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is effective, very well-structured, and logically timed; the work packages are fully interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources and consistent across the tables in Part B and Part A of the proposal. The research component is included in one single Work Package, The risks relative to implementation are very clearly described, and the mitigation measures are excellent. --------- The work plan is well structured. The PERT diagram and Gantt chart demonstrate a reasonable temporal distribution of activities. The distribution of resources is pertinent and coherent between Part A and B of the proposal. The coordinator appropriately carries the largest share of effort. However, the effort allocated to the non-European partner is relatively modest compared to its expected contributions. This is a minor shortcoming. The research component is clearly and appropriately concentrated within a single dedicated work package and the coordinator leads the work package. The identified risks are sufficiently comprehensive and well adapted to the project. Although mitigation measures are generally proportionate and practically oriented, the fragmentation between technical and socio-cognitive aspects of the project is not sufficiently addressed over the three-year interdisciplinary collaboration. This is a shortcoming. --------- The work plan is well structured, coherent and logically sequenced. The distribution of person-months, tasks and budget is appropriate and consistent across Part B tables and Part A, with a balanced allocation between research, capacity building, mobility, management and dissemination. Implementation risks are clearly identified, and mitigation measures are adequate and credible. While stakeholder engagement is well integrated in the methodology, the proposal does not explicitly identify the risk of delays stemming from dependence on external stakeholders (e.g. availability for workshops, validation activities). Corresponding mitigation measures are only indirectly addressed, which may pose a risk to the timely implementation of certain activities. This is a minor shortcoming. The high methodological ambition may require particularly strong coordination effort, and timetable pressure could arise if stakeholder-dependent activities are delayed. --------- The work plan is well-structured, effective and adequately timed. Overall, work packages are interrelated with a global coherency in the proposal and research. The distribution of resources is appropriate and consistent across the different tables. The proposal includes a research component, included in one single Work Package. Main critical risks relative to implementation are clearly identified, and the proposed mitigation measures are adequate. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes internationally leading higher education institutions. The leading institutions provide excellent support to the Widening beneficiary to successfully implement the project. Partners' roles and responsibilities are excellent in relation to the project's objectives. The consortium's expertise, complementarities, and infrastructure are very well aligned with the allocated tasks. The foreseen commercial involvement after the project end is extremely adequate for the exploitation of results. --------- The consortium adequately includes internationally recognised leading institutions with well-established research profiles in the subject of the project. The support structure is adequately designed and practically oriented. The partners collectively contribute, providing a credible basis for knowledge transfer. Partners' roles are clearly defined, adequately distributed, and well-aligned with their respective expertise. The alignment between expertise and tasks is strong. Each partner's contribution is grounded in demonstrated and specific competence areas. The research management consultancy's involvement in the dedicated capacity-building work package is well-suited and appropriately scoped. The coordinator's ownership of the CIGET framework provides a credible and distinctive scientific foundation for the research component. --------- The consortium consists of internationally recognised institutions. Roles and responsibilities are well defined and appropriate. The allocation of tasks is well aligned with partners' demonstrated expertise and infrastructure. Industrial/commercial involvement is adequate, focused on exploitation, management support and future uptake rather than product development. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions as expected. The proposal credibly describes how the leading institutions will provide to the Widening beneficiary the necessary support to successfully implement the project. Overall, partners' roles and responsibilities are appropriate. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. There are no real plans for industrial exploitation of results. This is a shortcoming. Scope of the application Status: Yes 101341021/TWINRES-20/07/2026-19:52:40 4/6  Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101341021/TWINRES-20/07/2026-19:52:40 5/6 101341021/TWINRES-20/07/2026-19:52:40 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T19:52:51 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340636 Proposal acronym: EVOLVE Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Enhancing excellence in resilient maritime autonomy through twinning, validation and European integration Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 715,250 47.74% 715,250 47.74% 2 DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET DK 393,094.38 26.24% 393,094.38 26.24% 3 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON UK 389,930.63 26.03% 389,930.63 26.03% Total: 1,498,275.01 1,498,275.01 Abstract: EVOLVE is a Horizon Europe Twinning project that will strengthen the scientific excellence and institutional capacity of Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech) in resilient maritime autonomy. The project addresses a key challenge for Europe: enabling Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships to operate safely and reliably under uncertainty, degraded sensing, harsh environmental conditions and system faults. EVOLVE brings together TalTech, the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and the University of Southampton (SOTON) in a complementary partnership. TalTech provides the maritime systems context, integration environment and institutional uptake pathway; DTU contributes expertise in deep learning models, adaptive and fault-tolerant control, and maritime AI safety; and SOTON contributes expertise in uncertainty-aware AI and hybrid predictive modelling. The project follows a structured pathway of transfer, integration, embedding and institutionalisation. Advanced expertise will be transferred through secondments, workshops, joint methodological development and scientific collaboration. It will then be integrated in a focused joint research component, where TalTech’s strengthened capability will be demonstrated through representative validation exercises. The acquired knowledge will be embedded through doctoral training, co-supervision, mentoring and early-career researcher development, and institutionalised through research- management strengthening and proposal-support tools. EVOLVE will deliver a research framework for resilient maritime autonomy, stronger scientific and methodological capability at TalTech, improved doctoral and training capacity, upgraded research-management procedures, and deeper integration into European research networks. In this way, the project will help reduce excellence disparities within the European Research Area and strengthen Europe’s knowledge base for safer and more resilient maritime operations. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340636/EVOLVE-20/07/2026-14:32:31 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The objectives and the capacity of the proposal are of outstanding quality. The leading partners have a very good reputational profile, and the intended secondments address very well the establishment of strategic ties and the researcher’s mobility. With maritime AI in harsh conditions, specifically ice, the proposal is also covering a novel R&I field in MASS. The number of presentations is slightly overestimated. --------- The objectives are clear, measurable and broadly achievable. They follow a coherent upgrading pathway covering scientific capacity, doctoral training, mobility, research management strengthening, and integration into European research networks. The quantified targets for secondments, trained researchers, co-supervision, joint publications, and follow-up proposals are relevant for monitoring progress. Some targets lack clear baselines or success thresholds. The objectives are pertinent to the Work Programme, as they address improved research excellence for the Widening beneficiary, stronger links with leading institutions, increased mobility, higher visibility, strengthened research management capacity, and novel collaborative approaches. --------- The proposal presents a solid structure and excellent strategic alignment with Twinning objectives. However, the conceptualisation of the 'joint research component' at early technology readiness levels lacks technical detail, making it difficult to assess its feasibility and integration. The fundraising plan is overly restrictive, focusing solely on Horizon Europe while neglecting national synergies. The generic definition of roles within the research management team weakens the professionalisation of the administrative implementation at the coordinating institution. --------- The proposal’s objectives are measurable, verifiable through a set of KPIs, and achievable. Overall, the proposal’s objectives are pertinent and in line with the scope of the call, as it aims to integrate transferred expertise in a focused joint research framework for resilient maritime autonomy by closing a structural integration gap in AI-enabled perception, hybrid predictive modelling and adaptive control, and enabling TalTech to become a credible node within ERA. However, the first specific objective “Integrate transferred expertise in a focused joint research framework for resilient maritime autonomy” is not convincingly substantiated. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The SWOT analysis is very well addressing the widening partner's situation, and linking the activities to this analysis is very appropriate. Achieving staff exchanges via secondments is also very good, but the proposal is limited in terms of length and amounts of secondments. The proposal also provides very good organisational and, specifically, technical KPIs. Aiming for only 30s in the Nowcast-KPI is reasonable for small USVs and early TRLs, but not enough for EVOLVE’s MASS objective. The Open Science principles are superficially addressed and do not sufficiently consider e.g. the inclusion of identified platforms for sharing. The provided awareness of AI and Dual-Use issues is very good. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures are sound and appropriate. Secondments, workshops, methodological protocols, doctoral training, co-supervision, research management upgrading, and dissemination activities are well aligned with the objectives. The research component provides a bounded research integration environment, and the research-management actions address relevant institutional needs through gap analysis, standard procedures, proposal-support tools and a dedicated EU research support function. The methodology does not fully explain how knowledge transfer will be monitored and embedded within the institution. Open Science practices are adequately integrated through a Data Management Plan, FAIR principles, open access, repositories and controlled access where justified. --------- The coordination and support measures are methodologically robust, featuring a high-quality activity plan that is well aligned with the strategic goals. The research component is strong, providing a clear pathway for advancing the state of the art through innovative training and experimental approaches. However, while the proposal identifies the need to upgrade the coordinator's administrative skills, it fails to explicitly assign a leading consortium partner to provide the required expert mentorship or operational support based on their specific expertise. The integration of Open Science is appropriate, demonstrating a rigorous commitment to FAIR principles through trusted repositories, standard open licenses, and a robust Data Management Plan (DMP) to ensure long-term reproducibility. --------- The proposed activities are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives and expected outcomes, including challenges and mitigation measures, based on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships that lead a critical technological transformation with the potential to optimise operational safety, logistics, and resilience of European maritime infrastructure. Activities include staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools; research component; research management WP/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing a dedicated team. The methodology is overall sound. However, it is not described in sufficient detail. Open Science practices are adequately integrated and aligned with European Open Research Data policy and FAIR principles. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340636/EVOLVE-20/07/2026-14:32:31 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The project's results are credible, and the high number and importance of secondments are also very good for improving the widening partners' competence and for establishing a lasting partnership, in accordance with the work Programme. The proposal provides a wide and appropriate variety of KPIs, beyond the identified outcomes, though the aspired ratio of submitted to granted proposals is slightly overambitious. --------- The project results are credible and of sufficient scale to achieve the expected Twinning outcomes, particularly by strengthening the coordinator’s scientific capability, doctoral training, research management capacity, strategic ties, and integration into European research networks. The expected results on secondments, co-supervision, joint publications, collaborative proposals and research-support tools are relevant. The indicators cover relevant dimensions, including mobility, training, publications, proposals, doctoral activities and collaboration. Several indicators measure activities or outputs rather than impact, and some lack clear baselines or success thresholds, particularly for leadership, funded follow-up projects and network integration. --------- Scientific impact pathways are credible. However, the approach to strengthening research management capacity is described in general terms and fails to address the national and regional dimension. The KPI framework is insufficient, failing to specify metrics for monitoring the professionalisation of the coordinator's research support staff, private investment attraction, or IP development. The absence of baseline data prevents a meaningful assessment of projected improvements relative to the current institutional status, making it difficult to evaluate the actual impact on the coordinator. --------- Overall, the proposal's results are credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. For each expected outcome, an appropriate contribution is foreseen towards integrated, competitive, and internationally connected research ecosystems. However, the pathways to achieve the expected impact are not sufficiently elaborated. The proposed quantitative and qualitative indicators are adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g., scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP) and to address the expected outcomes through a highly interconnected intervention logic. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination and exploitation plan, and specifically the set-up of an additional advisory board including already identified organisations, is very good. The selection of relevant European research networks to engage is incomplete and does not include major MASS networks such as INAS and OneSea. The identified regulatory and certification barriers are very good, but the mitigation measures are not fully developed. Commercial exploitation is only superficially covered, despite the project containing novel R&D elements and IPR; specifically, having a task on industrial engagement and commercial exploitation is also an important cornerstone to raise the widening partners' reputation and excellence. --------- The dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are suitable and coherent with Twinning objectives. They cover publications, conferences, workshops, stakeholder events, the website, training outputs, and a strategic white paper, and support the visibility and use of results beyond the project. External barriers are partly analysed, including the sustainability of collaboration, the uptake of outputs, and follow-up funding. The long-term maintenance and institutional use of the project outputs are insufficiently detailed. Intellectual property management is generally adequate. However, the arrangements for software, AI models, spin-off involvement, and controlled access to results are not entirely clear. --------- Dissemination and communication measures are generic and not sufficiently tailored to specific target audiences and channels. Likewise, the exploitation strategy does not clearly define potential products or services, instead offering only a general description without actionable pathways. The analysis does not recognise low participation by stakeholders and researchers as a barrier to impact. Finally, the intellectual property management approach is non-committal and generic, lacking strategic depth or defined institutional protocols. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are well-proportionated, suitable, and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope, using a plethora of appropriate means, measures, and engagement channels to reach target groups. These measures are substantiated by a fine-tailored set of verifiable KPIs. The proposal has clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project. The proposed mitigation measures are appropriate. The management and protection of intellectual property are adequate, balancing openness and collaboration with the need to protect valuable results. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340636/EVOLVE-20/07/2026-14:32:31 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan and its structure are very good and logically timed. The inclusion of a dedicated task on industrial engagement is a strong feature. However, the proposal does not fully explain how the widening partner will be positioned within or contribute to this task. The proposal does not provide sufficient detail on the number of researchers involved, the number and duration of secondment cycles, or the distinction between secondments and standard travel or workshop attendance. Moreover, the estimated travel costs per person are inconsistent across the partners. Considering the number of researchers expected to be seconded by the coordinator, the anticipated duration of the secondments, and the number of trips involved, the coordinator’s travel budget appears to be underestimated, while the corresponding budgets of the leading partners is overestimated. The risk matrix does not sufficiently address the technical and regulatory risks associated with the R&D work package. --------- The work plan is generally well-structured, logically timed, and coherent with the Twinning objectives. The work packages cover the main dimensions of the action, including a dedicated research component, knowledge transfer, strengthening research management, doctoral and early-career training, dissemination, and coordination. The links between work packages are clear. Some implementation details reduce clarity, including broad deliverables, lightly resourced activities and task responsibilities that are not always sufficiently differentiated. The risks are relevant and cover several implementation aspects. Some technical risks related to data access, platform availability, degraded-condition testing, and integration complexity are insufficiently developed. --------- The proposed work packages are coherent and well-structured, demonstrating a logical flow of activities. The risk analysis is only partially adequate and remains incomplete. It omits critical research-related threats, such as the absence of relevant scientific topics directly linked to the project's main research area. --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured, and logically timed, comprising six finely tailored work packages. The work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in Part A of the proposal. The implementation risks are clearly described and weighted by likelihood and severity. The risk mitigation measures are adequate. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The complementarity of the partners, including two leading institutions, is excellent for the given scope. The proposal does not sufficiently detail how the widening partner will be integrated into the core R&D tasks carried out by the two leading partners before the dedicated integration activities begin. The high number of senior researchers at BE3 is not adequately justified and needs revision, specifically, as other researchers are also planned in Part A but not budgeted. The consortium's capacities and complementariness are very well addressed. Associated stakeholders' involvement is planned but not crucial to R&D success, which is a minor concern with regard to commercial uptake. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading institutions with complementary expertise relevant to the proposal’s scientific focus. The leading institutions provide appropriate support through secondments, workshops, co-supervision, methodological guidance, joint research activities and proposal mentoring. Partners’ roles are generally appropriate in relation to the objectives. Some task leadership choices are not fully justified against the partners’ stated expertise. The consortium expertise and infrastructure are broadly aligned with the allocated tasks, including adaptive control, fault-tolerant systems, uncertainty-aware artificial intelligence, hybrid modelling and related research practices. Industrial/commercial involvement is relevant for the applied aspects of the project. The role of spin-off or commercial infrastructure in supporting data access and exploitation pathways is not fully clear. --------- The consortium is robust and of a high-calibre. There is an excellent alignment between the partners' collective expertise, available infrastructure, and allocated tasks. The leading institutions provide tangible, well-defined support to the Widening beneficiary. However, the industrial and commercial involvement is insufficiently detailed, lacking the specificity needed to effectively support the exploitation of project results. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading research institutions and higher education establishments with the required and complementary expertise and capacity. The leading institutions provide the Widening coordinator with the necessary, well-balanced support to successfully implement the project. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are complementary, well-proportioned, and appropriate to the project’s objectives and expected outcomes. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. Scope of the application Status: Yes 101340636/EVOLVE-20/07/2026-14:32:31 4/5  Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340636/EVOLVE-20/07/2026-14:32:31 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T14:32:36 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101341055 Proposal acronym: DigiCAP Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Digital Literacy and Capabilities for Civic Resilience in Smart Cities Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 372,445 24.83% 372,445 24.83% 2 ALMA MATER STUDIORUM - UNIVERSITA DI BOLOGNA IT 255,848 17.06% 255,848 17.06% 3 POLITECHNIKA GDANSKA PL 164,445 10.96% 164,445 10.96% 4 INSTITUT GOLEMI DANNI V POLZA NA BG 188,195 12.55% 188,195 12.55% INTELIGENTNOTO OBSHTESTVO 5 UNIVERSITEIT TWENTE NL 274,895 18.33% 274,895 18.33% 6 UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART DE 244,170 16.28% 244,170 16.28% Total: 1,499,998 1,499,998 Abstract: DigiCAP twins TalTech, GUT and GATE with UNIBO, UT and HLRS to empower Widening countries to independently lead SSH–STEM integrated smart city research at European level. It builds on a Dual twinning logic (Research Compoment and R&I Trainings) and establishes an Urban Digital Literacy and Capacity Building Hub (Urban Digital Hub) as a shared research, training, and experimentation space to strengthen civic resilience and digital capabilities in smart cities. The Hub will be hosted within partner universities and will function as a bridge between technological innovation in smart cities and its social, cultural, and ethical implications operationalised through joint summer schools, training modules, joint workshops, staff exchanges and curriculum development to jointly develop the academic network and R&I of Central and Eastern European Widening Countries. DigiCAP is structured around five Key Objectives: KO1: Establish the Urban Digital Hub as a shared, replicable digital literacy infrastructure operational in ≥3 partner cities KO2:Boost research excellence and R&I management capacities at FinEst Centre, GUT and GATE through joint publications and proposals, new research methods, and access to leading R&I networks. KO3: Raise the research profile and international attractiveness of FinEst Centre, GATE and GUT, and improve the research profile of its staff in digital and civic literacy for smart cities. KO4: Strengthen FinEst Centre´s, GATE’s and GUT’s R&I management capacity through a structured programme aligned to the European Competence Framework for Research Managers (ResearchComp) KO5: Develop novel SSH–STEM collaborative R&I approaches through the synthetic population and LLM-ABM framework and increase bidirectional researcher mobility; research collaboration on integrating synthetic population models in urban digital twins and visualisation in VR/AR. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence 101341055/DigiCAP-20/07/2026-19:54:09 1/6  Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- Proposal objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable and achievable, clearly focused on improving capabilities and management competencies of the widening partner through interaction with internationally recognized research experts. Such aims and objectives have been convincingly justified. Gaps in current competencies are explicitly identified and mitigation strategy through interaction with other research transfer partners is well supported. Diverse mechanisms for pursuing joint R&I are proposed and explicitly linked to specific activities foreseen in the work plan and with explicitly identified champions to lead those. There are credible mechanisms proposed to pursue significant level of mobility among consortium partners, with expected outcomes clearly benefiting lead partner. --------- The focus on digital literacy for civic resilience in smart cities is well justified, particularly through the connection made between smart city development, democratic participation and digital civic infrastructure. The objectives are clearly formulated. They are measurable through appropriate KPIs and verifiable through the indicated data sources. The project addresses relevant problems for the call and has clear potential to increase the research capacity of the widening beneficiary in an important and timely field. The proposal convincingly links SSH research with technology-oriented research - this being a novel approach. The researchers mobility is increased and both widening beneficiaries and the leading institutions have solid and numerous teams. --------- The proposal sets clear, strategically relevant objectives aligned with the Twinning call, supported by KPIs, timelines, and expected outcomes. Goals such as the Urban Digital Hub, stronger R&I management, and increased publications and mobility are achievable and well-structured. However, undefined baseline indicators weaken progress measurement and objective verifiability. The objectives are highly pertinent to the Twinning WP, directly addressing research excellence, SSH–STEM integration, mobility, institutional capacity building, and strategic collaboration between widening and leading institutions. The proposal demonstrates strong alignment with the expected outcomes through structured KPIs, exchanges, joint publications, and R&I management training. --------- The proposed objectives are clear, realistic and quantified based on KPIs. However, some KPIs are not appropriate for verifying the accomplishment of the objectives and some baselines are not adequately specified. The proposed objectives will have a positive impact on the research capacity and on the institutional reputation of the coordinator, on the attraction of competent staff and on the researchers' mobility. Some activities (e.g., training research managers) will build long term capacity. The Urban Digital Hub is ambitious and will enable strategic collaborations between widening and leading institutions. Standard collaboration practices will be employed rather than novel R&I approaches. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- Planned mobility and outreach actions are well-structured to support knowledge transfer from widening partners to the coordinator, although the long-term sustainability of such interactions is not fully convincing. Research WP includes a well-defined methodology for advancing the SoA in key identified research areas, while inclusion of gender balance, privacy-by-design and co-creation approaches strengthens scientific process. However, a minor shortcoming is a complexity of implementation that might lead to coordination issues, likely to be mitigated by proposed co-development and validation processes. Research management WP is well aligned with coordinator needs, combining variety of interactions and mobility schemes, aimed to strengthen research management capacities of widening partner with support of other ones. Open Science principles have been convincingly incorporated into the proposed research management methodology, including provision made for Open Access dissemination. --------- The proposed methodology is sound and aligned with the objectives. The activities are designed to produce demonstrable improvements in the research and institutional capacity of the three widening research institutions, with strong support from the three leading partners. The four methodological principles are convincing: integration of SSH and STEM, privacy by design, institutional embedding through permanent organisational traces, and evidence-driven iteration through living lab testing. The research WP is ambitious, covering scientific visualisation for the general public, AI-enabled city governance, and individual-level microdata with synthetic populations to identify vulnerability to digital exclusion. While the AI-enabled governance ambition is broad and will require careful focusing, the overall approach is credible. Risks are relevant and realistic. Open Science, DNSH and responsible R&I are well integrated. --------- The proposal presents comprehensive, appropriate and coherent coordination and support measures aligned with Twinning objectives and expected outcomes. Its methodology well combines staff exchanges, summer schools, workshops, Living Labs, trainings, and collaborative research in a credible SSH–STEM dual- twinning framework. Challenges and mitigation measures are realistic. Research activities (WP1) are ambitious, using synthetic population, LLM-ABM models, VR /AR tools, and digital governance frameworks, while WP2 strengthens well R&I management capacities. Strong innovation and gender integration advance state-of- the-art smart city research. However, long-term institutional transformation and sustainable research leadership are only partially substantiated beyond activity- based outputs. Open Science practices are well integrated through FAIR data principles, open-access publications, Zenodo repositories, Open Research Europe, and reusable training materials. --------- The proposed activities are motivated by real challenges and properly mapped to the objectives. However, the methodology does not adequately describe how the activities complement each other. Also, there is not sufficient information about the focus of the activities (e.g., topics of trainings, summer schools, and staff exchanges). The research component exhibits novel aspects such as the convergence of SSH with technological development in smart cities. However, the methodology of the research component does not plan for integrating some of the tools, which limits their value potential. The gender dimension of some tools (e.g., population explorer) is not considered. The support measures for the Digital Hub, are not adequately described. There is not sufficient information about the components and processes of the Hub and the types of stakeholders to be engaged. The Open Science practices are not adequately integrated into the methodology of the research component. Criterion 2 - Impact 101341055/DigiCAP-20/07/2026-19:54:09 2/6  Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- Proposed pathways to impact are credible and well-aligned with the work program, as project aims to combine measurable capacity building of lead partner through strategic collaboration, researcher/expert mobility, with results demonstrating a potential for achieving sufficient scale and relevance, thus to improve research excellence, collaboration, visibility, and R&I management capacities in coordinator widening country. Proposed KPIs are both quantitative and qualitative, mostly sufficiently detailed to monitor progress towards expected impacts. They include diverse publicity, mobility and engagement approaches. However, long-term impact indicators concerning sustainable funding and organizational transformation are not clear enough. --------- The pathways to impact are credible. Their importance lies in linking the green and digital transitions with socially grounded smart city research, supported by durable SSH-STEM collaboration. The indicators are generally adequate to measure the expected impacts. A strong point is that the local hubs include engagement with public administration representatives and civic tech companies. However, scientific output is measured mainly through submitted papers, which is less robust than indicators based on accepted papers. Another shortcoming is related to indicators in the research component that don't fully capture how citizens benefit from the project except from being invited to use the AR/VR tools in education workshops or compare real profiles with AI agents findings. --------- The expected results are credible and aligned with Twinning outcomes, supported by KPIs on publications, mobility, R&I capacity, stakeholder engagement, and institutional embedding. SSH–STEM research, the Digital Hub, and structured twinning offer a plausible route to long-term impact. However, the long-term sustainability of the Urban Digital Hub after funding is only partially demonstrated. The proposal defines a broad set of quantitative and qualitative indicators which generally support monitoring of the expected impacts and Twinning outcomes. The KPIs are mostly measurable and linked to timelines and deliverables. However, several impacts remain qualitative and insufficiently quantified beyond activity-level indicators. --------- The proposed results are very well aligned to the expected outcomes. Moreover, they are important and in-line with the widening goals of the coordinator. However, their scale during the project (e.g., the targeted numbers for citizens and city representatives training) is not ambitious enough. Moreover, the proposal does not provide information and indicators about the potential scale and impact of these results following the end of the project. The proposed indicators do not adequately present the expected impact of the project. For example, there is a lack of indicators about the adoption of the tools by potential beneficiaries, as well as a lack of indicators that can gauge engagement with the Urban Digital Hub during and after the end of the project. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Impact strategy is comprehensive and well-focused, combining dissemination, exploitation, communication measures and other collaboration strategies that credibly support sustainability and impact beyond the project time frame. Proposal took into consideration potential barriers potentially coming from variety of external factors to achieving long-term impact. It proposes sufficiently convincing mitigation strategy, combining various sustainability and continuing development actions. Management of IP is appropriate for a CSA type of a project through adoption of measures, such as shared access and open dissemination, DESCA-based governance and royalty-free access to results, while commercial exploitation strategy remains intentionally restricted. --------- The DEC measures are suitable and likely to support impact beyond the project duration. They combine visibility in the local contexts of the widening institutions with academic dissemination and broader communication activities, providing a good mix of channels and audiences. Exploitation is also addressed through the various relevant formats, tools and methods. The proposal recognises relevant barriers. Early institutional embedding, shared use of tools and methods provide convincing mitigation against staff turnover, overly individualised training effects, and the risk of the Hub as a project duration structure. IP management is adequately covered, including royalty-free use for five years, while intellectual ownership remains with the author. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication plan is generally well structured. However, links to durable policy uptake, institutional impact, and post-project sustainability are unclear, with the strategy focusing mainly on academic/training outputs rather than long-term operational or financial mechanisms. The proposal identifies barriers such as staff turnover, limited post-project resources, stakeholder uptake, and data access issues. However, the mitigation measures are generic and lack detail on contingency resources, governance roles, and financial mechanisms for post-project sustainability. IP management is adequate for a CSA, with clear ownership, DESCA-based governance, and open-access exploitation principles. --------- A good set of dissemination and communication activities are presented, along with decent KPIs. The proposal presents credible exploitation pathways for the results, such as the integration of structures (e.g., the Urban Digital Hub) to be established into existing institutional structures and processes (e.g., academic programs, living labs) of the partners. However, it does not discuss how these pathways will be implemented in terms of specific activities and timings. The analysis of barriers that may limit the accomplishment of the project’s impacts is good. However, the proposal does not outline credible mitigation measures. The proposed IP management methodology is appropriate. More details will be provided in a Consortium Agreement, which is acceptable. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101341055/DigiCAP-20/07/2026-19:54:09 3/6  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The structure of the work plan is operational, including the required components like research component and research management WPs. It describes a logical progression among research, training, twinning and management activities to lead towards achievement of project objectives and expected outcomes. However, the proposal does not provide sufficient justification why two work packages focusing on knowledge transfer are arranged in succession. Coordinator consolidates largest part of total efforts, well justified by its leading role and expected reception of knowledge from widening partners. The respective efforts/budgets of the latter ones generally correspond well to their expected responsibilities. However, involvement of knowledge transfer partners is biased significantly to one of them, raising doubts about scale and significance of research contributions from other partners. Training is only mentioned in the context of research management. Management or risks and mitigation strategy are sufficiently addressed. --------- The work plan is structured. The Gantt chart is clear, and the work packages are well interrelated, supporting a coherent progression from capacity building and methodological development to testing, institutional embedding, dissemination and exploitation. The distribution of PMs is balanced and consistent with the partners’ roles and expertise. The budget is well distributed across the consortium which has more than one widening partner and 3 leading partners. The proposal includes a dedicated research WP and its budget remains within the required limit. However, the Hub core methodology is a research output and the task is in other WP. Hence, research component spans two WPs, budget caps are not clearly shown. Implementation risks are clearly described and relevant, including risks related to SSH-STEM collaboration, staff turnover, limited international visibility and the durability of institutional capacity. The proposed mitigation measures are appropriate and credible. --------- The work plan is coherent, logically sequenced, and well aligned with the project objectives and Twinning logic. WPs are clearly interrelated, with a credible progression from R&I and management capacity-building to implementation, mobility, dissemination, and sustainability. Resource allocation across partners and WPs is generally balanced and consistent with the proposed activities. The proposal identifies the main implementation risks, including delays, staff turnover, insufficient stakeholder engagement, travel disruptions, and workload constraints, and provides generally relevant mitigation measures. However, several mitigation measures remain generic and rely heavily on partner experience rather than concrete operational contingency planning. --------- The workplan is properly structured and appropriate for achieving the objectives. The WPs cover all the activities planned as part of the project’s concept and methodology. However, the interrelationships between the various WPs are not adequately presented. The proposal does not illustrate which results will be transferred to other WPs and for which purpose. For instance, it is not sufficiently clear whether results from the research component will be used to support the training activities in WP2. A good list of deliverables and milestones is provided. However, there are no assigned milestones for tracking the development of the research component. The resources are properly allocated and balanced across the different WPs. The Lump Sum budget is well developed and consistent with the proposed activities. The presented risks do not adequately address the research component and do not explicitly deal with engagement risks linked to the establishment of the Urban Digital Hub. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- Proposal includes several research institutions from different countries, which demonstrates a reasonable international leadership in core proposal areas. With more than two leading research institutions involved, proposal is compliant with relevant call requirement. Overall research partners are expected to provide sufficient managerial support to the lead partner. Major shortcoming is in research profiles showing significant publications and projects dating several years, thus raising doubts about the forefront research potential to be offered by some of the research partners to the widening one. Partner roles and responsibilities are well defined, not only in the work packages and tasks of section 3, but also in the excellence section where leadership of key instruments used have been clearly described. Effort allocation across work packages and partner budgets are consistent and broadly proportional to their expected roles and contribution to allocated activities. --------- The consortium is convincing. The leading partners provide recognised capacity in advanced computational methods, digital twins, geospatial analytics, high- performance computing, scientific visualisation, co-creation and Open Science, while the widening beneficiaries provide the urban contexts and institutional bases where the Urban Digital Hub methodology will be tested, embedded and scaled. The distribution of roles is detailed across the work packages and well aligned with the partners’ expertise. The proposal shows access to critical research, technical and organisational infrastructure, including living lab environments, data-driven modelling capacity, visualisation facilities, FAIR-compliant repositories and research management structures. Exploitation is not primarily commercial: the use of tools and methods by municipalities and their integration within the participating universities. Industrial or commercial involvement is therefore not essential. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading institutions with strong complementary expertise. The leading institutions provide strong methodological, scientific, and R&I management support through mentoring, exchanges, trainings, joint research, and proposal development activities, ensuring effective capacity transfer to the Widening partners. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and well aligned with the objectives. The consortium demonstrates strong complementarity, with leading institutions providing methodological and R&I management expertise, while Widening partners ensure implementation, institutional embedding, and stakeholder engagement. The consortium’s expertise, HPC capacity, digital twin infrastructure, SSH competences, and Living Labs are well aligned with the allocated tasks. Industrial and civic-tech involvement is adequate for a CSA Twinning project, supporting stakeholder uptake and exploitation. --------- The consortium includes more than two internationally leading research institutions. The leading research institutions of the consortium will support the project through the provision of knowledge and technological infrastructure (including computing). The role of each research partners in supporting the widening activities is adequately illustrated. Moreover, the partners’ expertise and track record are appropriate and sufficient for the implementation of the proposed objective. The partners’ have been allocated resources in proper work packages in-line with their expertise and role in the project. The consortium includes an industrial partner with capacity to support commercialisation. This is adequate, given that most of the results will not be directly commercialised, but rather offered on a royalty free basis for a significant period after the end of the proposed project. 101341055/DigiCAP-20/07/2026-19:54:09 4/6  Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments 101341055/DigiCAP-20/07/2026-19:54:09 5/6  This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101341055/DigiCAP-20/07/2026-19:54:09 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T19:54:14 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340745 Proposal acronym: RE-SERVE Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Reusable and Serviceable Small Space Systems Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 645,682.25 44.11% 645,682.25 44.11% 2 CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY UK 415,015 28.35% 415,015 28.35% 3 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA IT 403,125 27.54% 403,125 27.54% Total: 1,463,822.25 1,463,822.25 Abstract: RE-SERVE aims to strengthen TalTech’s scientific and institutional excellence in system-level spacecraft engineering by enabling a decisive transition from subsystem-level participation to full system-integration competence in lifecycle-driven, serviceable and reusable small space systems. As a Twinning action in a Widening country, the project directly tackles Europe’s challenges of orbital sustainability, rapidly increasing satellite density, and limited spacecraft lifetimes. The consortium unites complementary excellence: TalTech brings advanced materials science, interface reliability and cybersecurity-aware system analysis; Sapienza University of Rome contributes world-class spacecraft architecture, mission design and space situational awareness; and Cranfield University adds cutting-edge expertise in robotics, autonomous servicing and operational validation. What makes RE-SERVE distinctive in the European landscape is its bold integration of materials behavior, cybersecurity constraints and servicing requirements directly into system-level architecture decision-making — an interdisciplinary approach that goes beyond traditional subsystem optimization and addresses the full lifecycle of serviceable space systems in a structured, replicable way. Rather than targeting a single mission, RE-SERVE builds durable institutional and methodological capacity through joint analytical co-development, researcher mobility, curriculum reform and research management strengthening. The project will enhance satellite resilience, enable more sustainable orbital use, and position TalTech to coordinate and lead future Horizon Europe and ESA projects in the emerging domain of serviceable and reusable small space systems. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340745/RE-SERVE-20/07/2026-19:43:50 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal is based on four main project objectives, each associated with an extensive set of quantitative and verifiable KPIs and credible means of verification. None of the proposed objectives is considered unreasonable or over-ambitious, and successful completion of the project is therefore fully feasible. All Work Programme goals are clearly targeted by the proposal objectives. Particularly remarkable in this respect are the mobility and training opportunities offered by the project, and the generation of stronger research ties between the partners through joint contributions to an extensive set of well-defined R&I strategic objectives. --------- The proposal objectives O1 and O4 lack detail concerning the KPIs. The objectives align well with the Work Programme. The research capacities and excellence of the coordinator are to be advanced through ambitious goals, which, however, are not realistic. Strategic ties with the leading institutions are strengthened through joint publications and mobility. Improving the coordinator's reputation and attractiveness is not explicitly addressed in the objectives. The coordinator's research management capacity is to be strengthened. The targets for novel R&I collaboration approaches lack detail. Researcher mobility is to be increased within the consortium. --------- The objectives are very well addressed. They are clearly structured around four measurable objectives covering institutional competence development, educational embedding, research management and European integration. Baselines are explicitly documented and targets are verifiable. The focus on institutional transformation rather than technological implementation is appropriate for a Twinning action. The objectives are very well addressed in relation to the Work Programme. All six expected dimensions are coherently covered. The output-driven mobility model, in which researcher exchanges are explicitly linked to analytical outputs, is particularly strong and contributes to novel collaboration approaches. The inbound /outbound mobility component is well balanced. --------- The proposal's objectives are clear and, for each, specific KPIs and means of verification are provided. The identified targets are well defined and achievable. The objectives are highly pertinent and will expand the research capacity of the beneficiary by applying existing materials and cybersecurity expertise to space applications. The synergy between participants is compelling, as each leading institution contributes unique background knowledge and skills. Furthermore, the partner institutions will support the beneficiary in developing stronger expertise in management, research and strategies tailored to the space market and space- related research. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposal presents a dedicated task on researcher mobility and early-career development, and a dedicated WP on strengthening research and innovation management. The activities foreseen within these work packages are clearly explained, fully credible and achievable. A research component WP is foreseen, and its scope and objectives are clearly presented. The proposal remains at a general level in explaining to what extent the integrated research activities planned within this WP, namely system-level architecture, lifecycle/robot integration constraints, materials and interface reliability, and cybersecurity, will go beyond the state of the art. A convincing description of the open science practices is provided in the proposal --------- The proposal methodology is appropriate to reach the objectives. Coordinated exchange measures are implemented. Engagement in conferences, workshops and joint training is well presented. However, there are established links between the coordinator and a partner, for example through the co-organisation of a conference series. There are also close links between the two leading institutions. The development of the research links beyond the current state is not presented convincingly. The research component lacks detail on the identification of research gaps and does not provide a clear overview of the state of the art in the research field of reusable space systems, or of how the project is to advance the field. The management capacities of the coordinator are to be improved through training. The means of verification are superficial, such as attendance records and internal approval. Open Science practices are adequately integrated in the proposal. --------- The methodology is well addressed. Activities are coherent and well sequenced, combining researcher exchanges and joint supervision. The research component advances the state of the art by developing an interdisciplinary lifecycle-driven architecture process integrating materials, servicing constraints and cybersecurity design, going well beyond existing subsystem-focused approaches. A research management WP is present to address proposal support workflows, innovation management and ERC preparation. Open Science practices are well addressed. A Data Management Plan is planned from month six, with FAIR principles applied. The controlled dissemination of certain cybersecurity-related outputs is explicitly and appropriately justified. --------- The project activities and methodology are appropriate and focused on achieving the project's objectives. These actions include staff exchanges, dedicated training, novel courses on specific space-related topics, a workshop and joint presentations at international conferences. The proposal does not sufficiently identify potential target conferences or journals for publications. Detailed, clear and quantitatively sound challenges are listed, along with appropriate mitigation solutions. Open Science practices for the research output are not sufficiently detailed. From the proposal, it is unclear which research outputs, besides publications, will be available during and after the project, or how third-party institutions will access them. Criterion 2 - Impact 101340745/RE-SERVE-20/07/2026-19:43:50 2/5  Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The proposal presents an extensive list of expected outcomes at various levels, including research excellence, strategic collaborations, international reputation, improved research management capabilities and novel R&I approaches, at a challenging but credible scale. These outcomes, if achieved by the end of the project, would certainly lead to excellent impact on the international recognition and research capabilities of the coordinator, well in line with the expected Work Programme outcomes. All expected outcomes are associated with fully defined, measurable and unambiguous KPIs. --------- The project results are credible and target the expected outcomes of the Work Programme well. The scale of the impacts is not sufficiently presented, with elements lacking detail, precision or novelty. For example, conference presentation and publication targets are low for a project of this scale. The proposed indicators are adequate for measuring the expected impacts. However, multiple outcomes are linked to the same indicators. --------- The pathway to impact is credible and well structured, built around a measurable institutional transition from subsystem-level participation to system-level integration. The pre-existing collaboration between the consortium partners strengthens the credibility of the transformation pathway. However, business collaboration mechanisms are not sufficiently described, which limits the credibility of the long-term industrial impact pathway. The indicators are quantitative and qualitative, covering scientific output, collaborations, recognition and institutional reforms. The indicators are comprehensive and well structured across all outcome areas. However, indicators related to investments and industry contracts are absent. --------- The proposal clearly states credible results that are convincingly sufficient to achieve the proposed outcomes, since they are likely to extend the coordinator's existing capabilities by adapting their application to the space sector. The listed impact indicators are clear, qualitatively sound and appropriate for measuring the expected impacts in terms of scientific production, collaborations and IP. There is no sufficient clarity regarding the project's expected impact on investments, society and the economy. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- A remarkable, credible and well quantified list of dissemination, exploitation and communication activities is presented in the proposal, together forming a set of actions with clear potential to widen the project impacts. Some barriers to the project impacts are analysed, with an initial identification of mitigation actions that are considered more than adequate at this stage. An initial description of the foreseen IP management activities, in line with Horizon Europe standards, is provided in the proposal. --------- Dissemination and communication measures provide an adequate approach for targeting different audiences, with appropriate performance indicators. The exploitation measures are effective, and the establishment of a new MSc-level course and development of PhD programmes provide impact beyond the project lifetime. The barriers to the project impacts are analysed. While the analysis of the barriers is sound and credible, the proposed mitigation of the barriers is not convincing. IPR management and protection are adequate within the scope of the project. Potential limitations to the dissemination of results relating to cybersecurity, for example, are mentioned, demonstrating domain awareness in the consortium. --------- The dissemination and exploitation framework is well addressed. Open access publications, presentations at leading international conferences and a policy brief targeting national research and innovation stakeholders ensure broad reach. The barriers are well analysed and the mitigation measures are appropriate. Brain drain is explicitly identified and the proposed mitigation is coherent. Intellectual property management is adequately addressed. Background and foreground IP rules follow standard European principles. Joint ownership rules are mentioned and will be formalised in the consortium agreement. The controlled dissemination of cybersecurity-related outputs is explicitly justified, which is appropriate given the nature of the research component. --------- The project dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are sufficient and are expected to guarantee continuity beyond the project's duration. These measures include higher education classes, PhD studies and continued collaboration between partners. The project clearly identifies potential barriers to its impact and proposes adequate mitigation solutions. Intellectual property management is adequate. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340745/RE-SERVE-20/07/2026-19:43:50 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is well structured and clearly separates the different Twinning elements of the action, with one WP on research capacity building, one on R&I management strengthening, and one on dissemination and communication. The choice of running all WPs in parallel throughout the entire project duration is adequate, given their interrelated objectives. Resource allocation is mostly adequate and coherently presented across all proposal tables. However, some of the claimed personnel monthly costs are overestimated and their justification is not fully credible. In particular, this concerns the monthly cost of a Senior Scientist and a Junior Scientist at the Italian partner and, to some extent, the monthly cost of a Senior Scientist at the widening coordinator. A clear and sufficiently detailed risk analysis is presented. However, only a limited number of generic risks associated with the research component WP are shown. --------- The work plan consists of five interrelated work packages, with the structure and logical links convincingly described in the proposal. The task descriptions lack detail and precision. The risks relative to implementation are clearly described and proposed mitigation measures are appropriate. However, the mitigation measures are not sufficiently discussed, in particular with regard to risks R5 and R8. --------- The work plan is well addressed. The work packages are logically structured. Milestones are logical and timely. The coordinator leads all five work packages simultaneously with no prior EU coordination experience. This concentration of responsibilities represents a significant implementation risk. A dedicated research component WP is present, and ambitious training activities are well presented in the project. The risk table partially addresses the project’s risks but remains incomplete. Four significant risks are either insufficiently justified or omitted: the feasibility of student recruitment, which is not supported by enrolment data or a documented recruitment strategy; dependence on a single named researcher at one partner institution; limited industry uptake; and the implementation of the lump-sum budget, particularly given the coordinator’s lack of previous coordination experience. The proposed mitigation measures do not adequately address these structural weaknesses. --------- The work plan is well detailed, the work packages are coherently integrated, and the allocation of resources is appropriate and consistent throughout the proposal. However, the beneficiary’s leadership of all work packages may lead to an excessive workload and an imbalanced distribution of effort. Research, administrative and implementation risks have been comprehensively identified, and mitigation measures are appropriate. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The two international partners are well-known leading universities in Europe, as confirmed by their expertise, reputation and infrastructures described in the proposal. The support provided by the international partners is clear, pertinent and sufficiently described. Each of them will support the widening coordinator in most of the project activities. The roles of each partner are clearly outlined in the proposal and are directly linked to the project objectives. However, the distribution of responsibilities throughout the project is insufficiently balanced, since the coordinator will have lead responsibility for all WPs and all deliverables. The three partners provide a credible set of facilities, technical expertise and governance capabilities for achieving the research objectives. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading universities, with strong standing in space system research and topics of serviceability. The leading institutions provide the coordinator with the support needed to successfully implement the project. However, the experience of the leading institutions in coordinating large system-level ESA/EU space proposals is not presented in sufficient detail in the proposal, making the implementation towards the objective of leading such a project by the coordinator less credible. The roles and responsibilities of the partners are appropriate to the objectives in the proposal. The consortium expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions with well-established and complementary expertise in spacecraft systems. Their leading status is well demonstrated. The support provided by the leading institutions to the widening beneficiary is well addressed. The pre-existing bilateral collaboration between the coordinator and the partners ensures that knowledge transfer operates smoothly. The roles of all partners are clearly defined and complementary in relation to the project objectives. No overlap or gap in responsibilities is identified. The expertise and infrastructure of the consortium are well aligned with the allocated tasks. Together, the partners cover the proposal domains, and the tasks are well aligned. --------- The consortium is well structured, with two internationally leading research and higher education institutions. The leading institutions provide the beneficiary with complementary expertise to implement the project, including background and infrastructure related to space systems, satellites and servicing. However, the proposal provides limited evidence of the relevant track record/expertise of the team assigned to these tasks. The partners' roles are well detailed and are appropriate. The partners' infrastructures are appropriate. Scope of the application Status: Yes 101340745/RE-SERVE-20/07/2026-19:43:50 4/5  Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators are a matter of opinion, rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340745/RE-SERVE-20/07/2026-19:43:50 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T19:43:55 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340318 Proposal acronym: ORGANIZE Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Organoid-based Advanced Network for Integrated biomedical research and capacity building in Europe Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 1,050,000 70.00% 1,050,000 70.00% 2 ITA-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO FI 225,000 15.00% 225,000 15.00% 3 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET DK 225,000 15.00% 225,000 15.00% Total: 1,500,000 1,500,000 Abstract: European Union (EU) Directive 2010/63/EU promotes replacing animal models with scientifically robust alternatives, driving a shift toward human- relevant experimental systems. Human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC) technologies and organoid models enable physiologically relevant reconstruction of tissue architecture and function, particularly for excitable tissues such as cardiac and neural systems. Combined with electrophysiological phenotyping and computational modelling, these approaches support multi-scale, predictive analysis of disease mechanisms. Despite progress at leading European institutions, adoption remains uneven across the European Research Area (ERA), with significant gaps in Widening countries. In the Baltic region, research is fragmented and limited in scope. Capacity to generate complex hiPSC-derived organoids, particularly neural models, remains low, and engineered heart tissues systems are not established. TalTech has strong expertise in excitable tissue physiology and molecular neuroscience, but lacks integrated workflows for hiPSC-based tissue engineering and organoid modelling, and institutional capacity in research management and FAIR data practices. The Twinning project ORGANIZE will address these gaps by establishing an integrated hiPSC-based platform combining engineered heart tissues, neural organoids, electrophysiology, and computational modelling. Implemented with University of Eastern Finland and University of Copenhagen, the project will transfer advanced methodologies, develop reproducible workflow, and embed them into institutional practice. Friedreich's ataxia, a rare neuro-cardiac disorder with no cure, serves as a proof-of-concept to validate models; ORGANIZE will apply advanced maturation strategies to improve their human relevance. Through training, mobility, and strengthened research management, ORGANIZE will enhance TalTech’s capacity to participate in European programmes and establish it as a regional competence hub. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 14.25 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 5.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340318/ORGANIZE-20/07/2026-22:00:23 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal describes very clear objectives, including setting up a platform for iPSC differentiation with a clear proof of concept for the heart and brain. The proposal indicates very clear success metrics, such as the establishment of electrophysiological readouts, indicating strong measurability and verifiability. The objectives are pertinent to the Work Programme as they focus on an effective transfer of knowledge and expertise (e.g., advanced in vitro models) and training of both scientists and administrative staff. The innovative aspect of the research and development effort is moderate in the overall international landscape, as, for example, FRDA models are already developed, and the proposal does not sufficiently highlight the innovative aspect. --------- The objectives are clear, well defined, verifiable, and achievable within the project duration.The activities, milestones, and deliverables are coherently aligned with the expected outcomes, enabling effective monitoring of progress and implementation. It is a credible strategy to strengthen scientific excellence, institutional capacity, and sustainable collaboration. The proposal is highly pertinent to the Work Programme. It strongly supports research excellence and capacity building of the Widening beneficiary. It is expected to reinforce strategic partnerships, enhance institutional reputation and staff profiles, strengthen research management capacities, promote innovative R&I collaboration approaches, and significantly increase researcher mobility and knowledge transfer. --------- The presented objectives are clear and achievable in the project time frame. It is also possible to measure and verify them. The proposal’s aims are sufficiently pertinent to those of the Work Programme. Research capacities of the coordinator will be clearly enhanced through the planned transfer of knowledge and validation actions. This will improve institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff profiles of the coordinator and in addition, lead to stronger strategic ties between the participants. The objectives to strengthen research management capacities and to build an operational unit to ensure long-term sustainability are effective. The objectives to enhance innovative collaborations in translational medicine and to increase researcher mobility are very good. --------- The proposals objectives are excellently described and are clear, measurable, verifiable. It is unclear if the results are achievable within the time period of the proposal, which is a minor shortcoming. The widening beneficiary (WB) already has a clear research capacity. The proposal will improve the capacity through knowledge transfer. The potential for excellence is already present. The proposal will indeed create stronger ties between the partners and strengthen research management at the WB. R&I collaboration approaches are sufficient. Increased researcher mobility is clearly described. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed methodology is overall sufficiently described. However, important aspects of the research component, such as methods or technologies, and advances in the current state of the art in iPSC differentiation are not appropriately described. Challenges are identified (e.g. risk of insufficient critical mass), but the mitigation strategy associated with the methodology to achieve the objective is not sufficiently discussed. Gender dimension is appropriately integrated as an experimental variable, and data will be collected from donors of both sexes. Open Science Practices are well integrated (e.g. data will be published with open access and free repositories will be used) and include a clear plan for research data management. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures are highly relevant, well structured, and appropriate to achieve the project objectives. Staff exchanges, expert visits, workshops, training activities, conferences, and outreach actions are coherently integrated and support effective knowledge transfer and long-term collaboration. The research component is ambitious and convincingly addresses the development and implementation of innovative methodologies with clear potential to advance the state of the art. The research management activities are also strong and is a credible strategy to enhance the coordinator’s institutional and administrative capacities. Challenges and mitigation measures are adequately identified and addressed. Open Science practices are very well integrated throughout the proposal with a strong commitment to open access publications, data sharing, reproducibility, and transparent research practices, with appropriate justification and implementation measures. --------- The proposed activities to transfer the necessary knowledge to the coordinator are robust and highly appropriate. These include collaborations, mobility and targeted training. The specific needs and challenges to achieve the objectives of improving the research capacities for generating standardized workflows for organoid systems have been very clearly presented, and the proposed mitigation measures are credible. The research component is of high quality including transferring of advanced methodologies to the coordinator linked to advanced training and validation of the integrated methodology clearly contributing to the state-of-the-art. Gender dimension is very well included in the research. The research management unit will be clearly upgraded to support proposal preparation, project monitoring, financial and administrative management, and data governance. Open Science practices have been very well integrated including publications, methodologies, workflows and data. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. Staff exchanges are present along with multiple types of training programs. The research component is present and relevant with an interesting proof of concept that can move the research topic beyond the state of the art. Research management packages are present and relevant to the Work Programme. Open Science practices are adequately integrated Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340318/ORGANIZE-20/07/2026-22:00:23 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The proposal highlights credible results, including increased visibility of the coordinator in the iPSC modelling field. The results are of sufficient scale to meet the expected outcome of the Work Programme, as they focus on establishing long-lasting strategic collaborations between the collaborators and the partners. The proposal indicates very convincing quantitative and qualitative indicators such as precise numbers of publications, shared datasets, and staff exchanges executed. --------- The pathways to impact are credible and well aligned with the Work Programme. The expected results are ambitious, scientifically relevant, and of sufficient scale to generate significant impact on research excellence, institutional capacity, networking, and long-term collaboration. The project demonstrates strong potential to enhance the scientific profile and international competitiveness of the Widening beneficiary while advancing the state of the art through innovative approaches. The proposed quantitative and qualitative indicators are comprehensive, measurable, and appropriate to assess the expected impacts.They adequately capture scientific output, collaboration intensity, researcher mobility, institutional visibility, networking, knowledge transfer, and potential exploitation outcomes. --------- The project results are credible and of sufficient scale to achieve the expected outcomes regarding research excellence. Results include a number of validated and standardized workflows for the transferred technology that will have a substantial impact on the capacity building of the coordinator and strengthening its role in international consortia. This is supported by a good number of mobility and training activities. The expected results concerning research management are significant, including increase in proposal submission and success. The indicators to measure the expected impacts in improving research excellence, collaborations, management processes and reputation of the coordinator are well presented. --------- The project results are well detailed, credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. The KPIs are clear, in detail, and well described for scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, and IP. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication activities are described but remain vague. The strategy is not contextualised in the ecosystem of the coordinator or partners: e.g. which specific local groups, or associations, which specific journals and conferences. Barriers to the execution of the project are well described and include relevant points such as the dependence on sustained collaborations with leading institutions. The mitigation strategy is convincing, including the long-term participation in EU networks. The IP strategy is in line with the Work Programme, but lacks sufficient project-specific detail and a stronger link to the proposed e.g. FRDA modelling technologies and expected outcomes. --------- Dissemination, communication, and exploitation measures are highly suitable and likely to ensure visibility and sustainability beyond the project duration. The planned activities target both scientific and broader stakeholder communities effectively. External barriers to impact are clearly identified, and appropriate mitigation measures are proposed, supporting the long-term feasibility and sustainability of the expected outcomes. Intellectual property management and protection measures are adequately addressed and proportionate to the scope and expected outputs of the project. --------- The dissemination measures including publications, conferences and webinars are impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope. The exploitation measures to ensure that project results are transferable to industry are very good including joint events to identify early-stage innovation potentials. The communication measures to reach a broader audience including use of social media, videos, press releases and outreach activities are very good. The project has clearly analysed the external barriers related to regulatory requirements, funding and human resources and limited uptake of technology by academia or industry. Effective mitigation measures have been proposed. IP management procedures are adequate with appropriate protection measures for innovative components. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are suitable and impactful beyond the projects scope and during the project execution. Barriers and mitigations measures are discussed at a very surface level and not in enough detail, which is a shortcoming. IP management and protection are well-described. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340318/ORGANIZE-20/07/2026-22:00:23 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is overall well structured. The work packages are well interrelated with clear research training and mobility tasks. The distribution of resources is credible with extensive person per month dedicated to the research component and implementation procedures, consistent with the work plan. The timeline for the execution of the project is credible, and the resource description is consistent between tables in Part A and Part B. The risks are well identified, such as the variability in the electrophysiological recordings. The mitigation strategy is credible with, e.g. repeated validation cycles and more stringent standard operating procedure implementation across the different sites. --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured, and logically timed. Work packages are clearly interrelated, and the overall planning shows a coherent sequence of activities. Resource allocation in terms of person-months and budget is appropriate and consistent across Part B and the Lump Sum table, ensuring internal coherence and feasibility. Risks related to implementation are clearly identified and appropriately addressed. The mitigation measures are adequate, realistic, and proportionate to the complexity of the proposed activities, supporting overall implementation feasibility. --------- The work plan is effective and the timing of tasks is logical. Work packages are clearly interrelated linking research, transfer of knowledge and training. The person-month and budget resources have been distributed appropriately related to planned tasks. The person-months tables across Part B and the Detailed Budget Table are consistent and the Lump Sum table is consistent with the budget table in Part A. The implementation risks have been appropriately considered including research, training and management procedures and adequate mitigation measures have been proposed. --------- The work plan is very well described, effective and well-structured. Work packages are interrelated with the proper distribution of resources. Implementation risks of the POC in the research package are not clearly described, which is a shortcoming. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The proposal includes two internationally leading institutions. The leading institutions provide appropriate support via specific technical expertise, such as iPSC-derived cardiomyocyte differentiation and analysis. The partners' role and responsibility are clarified. However, the specific role of the collaborators in providing the management capabilities is not sufficiently highlighted. This is a minor shortcoming. The consortium's expertise is very well aligned with the tasks and includes relevant knowledge in the different tissue iPSC differentiation. All the relevant infrastructure for the successful execution of the project is in place, including dedicated BSL-2 labs and electrophysiological setups. Potential industrial/commercial involvement is not adequately addressed. This is a minor shortcoming. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments, fully meeting the requirements of the call. The leading institutions provide strong and well-structured support to the Widening beneficiary through training, knowledge transfer, and collaborative research activities, ensuring effective project implementation. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are well defined and appropriately aligned with the project objectives, ensuring a balanced distribution of tasks across the consortium. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well matched to the allocated tasks, demonstrating strong technical and scientific complementarity. Industrial or commercial involvement is not significantly developed; however, this does not critically affect the implementation of the project given its academic and capacity-building focus. --------- The consortium clearly includes two leading institutes with internationally recognized expertise that provides the necessary support to successfully transfer the planned scientific and management knowledge to the coordinator. The roles and responsibilities of the partners are highly appropriate to achieve the objectives. The coordinator is responsible for the local integration of the methods while the leading institutes are responsible for effective transfer of knowledge. The research expertise in different cardiac and neural systems of the partners is very good and the complementarity is highly suitable for the transfer of knowledge and validation efforts. The leading institutes have important experience in European funding programmes and project management. All partners have the necessary infrastructure well aligned with the research, training and management tasks. --------- The consortium includes two well-known researching institutions that have a strong medical technologies reputation and even stronger reputations in the areas of cardiovascular research and neurology. It is positive for the proposal that smaller, but leading, institutions are part of the consortium as the WB will see a positive example of how institutes from small countries and universities can be competitive against larger organizations. The leading institutions do provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. The industrial/commercial involvement are adequate for exploitation of results. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided 101340318/ORGANIZE-20/07/2026-22:00:23 4/5  Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340318/ORGANIZE-20/07/2026-22:00:23 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T22:00:48 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101339646 Proposal acronym: PIEMG Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Policy Innovation and Experimentation in the context of Multi-level Governance Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 678,196.25 56.14% 678,196.25 56.14% 2 UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA ES 264,125 21.86% 264,125 21.86% 3 ALMA MATER STUDIORUM - UNIVERSITA DI BOLOGNA IT 265,826.75 22.00% 265,826.75 22.00% Total: 1,208,148 1,208,148 Abstract: European governments increasingly face complex, interdependent policy challenges that demand more adaptive, evidence-informed approaches to policymaking. Despite its recognized potential, policy experimentation remains underutilized across EU member states (especially in the CEE region), partly due to insufficient institutional capacities and limited understanding of how multi-level governance (MLG) arrangements shape experimental policy design, implementation, and learning. The project “Policy Innovation and Experimentation in the context of Multi-Level Governance” (PIEMG) aims to improve the institutionalization and sustainability of policy experimentation and innovation within the EU MLG system by strengthening the research excellence and capacity of Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech). This will be achieved by creating new knowledge of policy experimentation successes and challenges and their linkages to policy innovation in the MLG context, improving the research excellence of senior and early career researchers, modernising the teaching and training methods for undergraduate and graduate students, upskilling research support staff and improving knowledge sharing by creating new channels of knowledge transfer between the university and public organizations in Estonia. Two leading universities in the field, University of Barcelona and University of Bologna, will be engaged in the project to study policy experimentation and policy innovation and facilitate institutional and peer-to-peer learning. As a result, we expect to see greater recognition of TalTech as a leading university in the field of public policy and administration, improved permeability between academia and public sector employment and the modernization of policymaking across multi-level governance structures in Europe. The project also supports TalTech's deeper integration into the European Research Area and strengthens its competitiveness in future collaborative research proposals. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.75 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101339646/PIEMG-20/07/2026-17:04:26 1/6  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal’s objectives are clearly described, measurable and achievable within the project timeframe. They are sufficiently specific to ensure clear traceability throughout the proposal and across the work plan. The proposal’s objectives demonstrate strong alignment with the Work Programme’s priorities. They effectively position the project to advance research excellence, strengthen strategic ties, enhance research management capabilities, promote novel R&I collaboration models, and increase inward and outward researcher mobility in the emerging field of public policy innovation and experimentation within EU multi-level governance systems. In addition, the objectives clearly support the coordinator's international visibility, attractiveness, and research profile. --------- The proposal’s objectives align with the conceptual framework to enhance the Coordinator's research excellence and institutional capacity for experimental policymaking, particularly by testing and refining innovative policy solutions. While the objectives are clearly articulated and achievable, the conceptual and analytical framework provides limited evidence and indicators that they are sufficiently measurable and verifiable. Nevertheless, given the coherence and consistency of the logical framework, it is reasonable to infer that the objectives are both verifiable and achievable. The proposal’s objectives are relevant and aligned with the Work Programme, addressing improved excellence, stronger ties with leading institutions, strengthened research management & increased mobility. --------- All objectives are very specific, clear, verifiable, and achievable, supported by an extensive list of well-described milestones. The objectives are fully aligned with the Work Programme. The coordinator would get a strengthened research profile and capacities in the area of the proposal. A strong, long-lasting research collaboration among all partners is foreseen, including with the European Knowledge Hub, beyond the end of the project. There’s a convincing work package to strengthen research management capacities. The proposal includes developing innovative and vital R&I collaboration approaches between researchers and stakeholders. The proposal includes increased inward and outward mobility to strengthen knowledge transfer. --------- The objectives are clear, coherent and achievable within the project duration. They address the strengthening of Coordaintor’s research excellence, institutional capacity, research management competences, international networking, and knowledge transfer in policy experimentation and innovation. Progress can be verified through concrete outputs, including joint publications, staff exchanges, training activities and curriculum development. The objectives are highly relevant to the Twinning call, supporting research excellence, capacity building, cooperation with leading institutions and researcher mobility. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed methodology and activities are appropriate and well-structured to deliver the project objectives. The research work package clearly addresses key knowledge gaps through joint research and generates relevant insights for advancing policy experimentation within EU multi-level governance, using a holistic and interdisciplinary approach. Staff exchanges are relevant for strengthening the coordinator’s research capacities, upskilling staff and expanding networks with leading institutions. The research management work package also provides a credible capacity-building approach through ResearchComp, pre-award support tools and adoption of COARA. Challenges are well considered and mitigation measures credible. The gender perspective is considered in the research content. Open Science practices are adequately integrated into each work package, with clear provisions for open access, data management, adherence to FAIR principles, and reuse of project outputs and publications. --------- The coordination and support measures are well-designed and coherent with the project objectives. The proposal includes a range of complementary activities — such as research, capacity development, staff upskilling, and scientific excellence among researchers. The methodology is built on three domains - academic activities, academic capabilities and research management - through six work packages that explain how the specific measures contribute to achieving the objectives. The challenges are identified across the work packages, and mitigation measures are proposed. However, these challenges are spread across the work packages, insufficiently elaborated, and the explanation remains incomplete. The proposal has adopted Open Science practices, integrated through open-access publications, FAIR data management, and a Data Management Plan, with GDPR-compliant handling of personal data. --------- The consortium collects data across all participating countries to define appropriate objectives and create a library of policy experiments that can provide an important basis for the planned research activities. Linked to them, several mobility activities are foreseen for collaboration with partners and stakeholders. Joint summer schools are planned, as are visits linked to the supervision and mentoring of PhD students. The research component plays a fundamental role in the proposal, on which the other work packages are built. An empirical analysis to be done. Gender equality is properly integrated into the research activities. A comprehensive research management package is also included to strengthen the coordinator's capacity, primarily through knowledge transfer. Publications and research data to be accessible through Open Science in accordance with the FAIR principles. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures are well-designed and appropriate for achieving the objectives. The methodology coherently combines joint research, staff exchanges, mentoring, co-supervision, training and outreach activities. Strong aspects include measures to strengthen research management capacities at Coordinator's through dedicated training, CoARA implementation, and upgraded pre-award support functions, as well as the development of novel R&I collaboration approaches through mobility, joint supervision, and policy fellowships. Methodological challenges related to stakeholder engagement and data collection are identified and accompanied by adequate mitigation measures. The gender dimension is not directly relevant due to the project’s policy and governance focus, although gender balance measures are considered. Open Science is integrated through open access, but data management procedures could be further detailed. Criterion 2 - Impact 101339646/PIEMG-20/07/2026-17:04:26 2/6  Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The project results are credible and well calibrated to achieve the Work Programme’s expected outcomes and impacts. They demonstrate strong relevance by addressing knowledge gaps regarding the uptake of experimental approaches in public policymaking. They are also highly relevant to strengthening knowledge transfer between academia and the public sector, with concrete outputs such as strategic collaboration agreements, micro-degree programmes and a policy fellowship that provide clear pathways for sustained researcher–policymaker cooperation. The proposed set of indicators is adequate for monitoring project progress and measuring impacts. The targets for scientific outputs, collaborations and recognition are credible. IP indicator is not exhaustively provided. --------- The project presents a credible, sufficiently scaled pathway to achieve the call's expected outcomes, clearly setting out each partner's contribution, project results, and the wider economic, social, and scientific impacts. The project maps contributions to all five expected outcomes, supported by concrete results: an open-access case library, three TalTech-led international projects, a new executive micro-degree, revised curricula, etc. Target-group benefits are specified for academic communities and policymakers, and indicators are largely quantified. The proposed quantitative and qualitative indicators are adequate to the measures taken and the expected impacts, covering scientific output, collaborations, recognition and mobility, while some impact indicators remain qualitative. --------- The results are relevant, realistic and central compared to the Work Programme. It’s a new area in the Widening country, but all measures and resources show that they could lead to success. The consortium has put in place a strong qualitative and quantitative quality assurance mechanism comprising key indicators for measuring impact of the following: scientific output, collaborations and networking, recognition, but not specifically concerning investments and Intellectual Property rights. --------- The proposal presents credible pathways towards the expected impacts of the Twinning call. Collaboration with two leading universities, combined with mobility, networking, training and joint research activities, is likely to strengthen Coordinator's research excellence, international visibility and ERA integration. The planned results are relevant and of sufficient scale to contribute to the wider Work Programme outcomes in research excellence, institutional capacity building, and access to international networks. The proposal includes appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators related to publications, mobility, training and networking activities. However, some long- term institutional impacts are insufficiently operationalised through precise targets and baseline values. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The DEC measures are well-designed, with clear target groups, KPIs, channels, and an outreach strategy. Uptake is credibly supported through network expansion, integration of project outputs into training programmes and the policy fellowship scheme. Local administration engagement and the coordinator’s role as a hub for policy experimentation strengthen prospects for lasting impact beyond the project duration and scope. The proposal provides a good analysis of barriers to impact, with adequate mitigation measures. IP management is broadly adequate through the planned CA, but remains general, as clear rules on access rights, data reuse, and joint ownership are not clearly provided. --------- The proposal presents well-structured dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures that are suitable and detailed in the initial plans, with examples and KPIs; it is methodological and institutional, sustained through policy networks, case-study teaching materials, policy fellowships, etc. External barriers, including political factors, are well explained, with fully developed and justified mitigation measures. Intellectual property is addressed through a Consortium Agreement that defines background, foreground, and broadly outlines access rights. --------- There is a complete list of pertinent dissemination outputs, ranging from more traditional media to more modern virtual ones. Exploitation is essentially about networking among different actors in experimental policymaking at national and international levels and in relevant policy fellowships. The results from this collaboration can lead the way to further fruitful developments. Communication measures are good. They are focused on traditional media and virtual activities. The proposal outlines a few highly relevant external barriers, along with appropriate mitigation measures. The consortium properly applies intellectual property management measures through a signed agreement. Data protection and copyrights follow national legislation. --------- Dissemination measures are appropriate, including publications, workshops, summer schools, digital tools and policy events targeting academia, policy and the public. Communication is supported by a clear project identity and online tools. Exploitation is credible, with updated curricula, policy fellowships, micro-degrees and stronger institutional networks for sustainability. Barriers such as a limited culture of experimentation and limited stakeholder engagement are identified, with mitigation through networks, mobility, and capacity building. Some measures would benefit from clearer long-term detail. Intellectual property is adequately addressed through data management and knowledge-sharing procedures suited to the CSA's nature. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339646/PIEMG-20/07/2026-17:04:26 3/6  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is coherent, logically sequenced, and well-structured. Work packages, tasks and interdependencies are clearly described. Resource allocation is consistent with the objectives, and cost information, including other costs such as travel, website and attendance fees, is transparent and coherent across the proposal. The main research component is embedded in one Research Work Package, although the scope of annual research seminars in another Work Package is not clearly established. The risk matrix is generally adequate, but the mitigation measures remain broad and lack clear options, such as alternative channels for training activities or more concrete fallback plans for low participation. --------- The work plan is effective and well organised, structured around seven work packages. It follows a logical sequence and provides a solid foundation for carrying out the planned activities. The tasks are clearly described, with well-defined timelines and coherent links between work packages. The proposal also includes sufficiently quantified information to support the monitoring of implementation progress. Resource allocation across the work packages is appropriate, and the person-months and financial breakdown are consistent between Part A and the detailed budget table. Deliverables and milestones are clearly specified, including their delivery dates, types, and dissemination levels. The research component is contained in a single work package. It comprises the allowed share of the total budget, and the allowed share of the research budget is allocated to the coordinator. The implementation risks are clearly described, covering survey engagement, partner management, capacity to deliver joint actions and programme sign-ups, each with adequate mitigation measures. --------- The work plan is well-structured, with a solid risk analysis and timeline. The other work packages derive more or less from the output of WP1. The distribution of resources across the work packages corresponds entirely to the expected results. The rule concerning the content of research activities in other work packages is respected. There are no research activities in other work packages. A number of relevant external implementation risks are listed, along with pertinent mitigation measures. --------- The work plan is coherent, well-structured and logically organised across interrelated work packages covering research, capacity building, research management, outreach and coordination. The timing of activities, allocation of person-months and budget distribution are generally appropriate and consistent across the proposal and budget tables. The research component is appropriately concentrated within a single dedicated work package and remains clearly distinguishable from coordination and training activities. Risks related to implementation, staff workload and institutional engagement are identified and accompanied by reasonable mitigation measures. For example, some contingency measures to sustain long-term policy engagement are only broadly described. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise 101339646/PIEMG-20/07/2026-17:04:26 4/6  a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The participating leading institutions have strong international profiles, as demonstrated by high rankings in global rankings, recognised scientific output, participation in major academic and policy networks, and extensive experience in EU-funded research. Their expertise in political and social sciences, public policy, governance, policy evaluation, and knowledge transfer provides a solid basis for strengthening the coordinator’s research excellence, institutional capacity, and international visibility, and for ensuring successful project implementation. The roles and responsibilities of the project's partners are complementary and well justified in the proposal and the work plan. The consortium offers high-quality, well-suited infrastructure to support the project’s implementation and various tasks. The combined expertise is also adequate. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading, highly ranked higher education institutions. They provide the Widening beneficiary with structured support through staff exchanges, co-supervision, mentoring, research seminars, summer schools, pre-award support, etc. The consortium brings together the necessary expertise and is proportionate. The partners' roles and responsibilities are complementary, based on each university's expertise and experience in the research topic and on the team's multidisciplinary collaboration. A value-added aspect is that the consortium builds on pre-existing partnerships. Consortium partners' expertise enables them to offer a sophisticated academic infrastructure and to demonstrate sufficient operational capacity and resources to carry out their assigned tasks. Industrial or commercial involvement is not applicable, as exploitation is academic and institutional. --------- In the consortium, there are two major internationally leading European universities according to international research rankings. The two leading research institutions have very strong expertise in fields in which the coordinator lacks expertise. All partners have been fully allocated tasks and responsibilities according to their expertise to best achieve the project. The allocation of tasks is fully aligned with the consortium's expertise and infrastructure. --------- The consortium includes two internationally recognised higher education institutions with strong expertise in governance, public administration and policy innovation. The leading institutions provide appropriate scientific and institutional support through joint research, mentoring, staff exchanges and research management cooperation. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and well aligned with the project objectives.The consortium demonstrates strong and complementary expertise in policy experimentation, innovation and governance studies, supported by relevant academic experience and institutional capacities. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) 101339646/PIEMG-20/07/2026-17:04:26 5/6  Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed, and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations among the individual evaluators are matters of opinion rather than misunderstandings of the proposal, and that the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101339646/PIEMG-20/07/2026-17:04:26 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T17:04:31 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340940 Proposal acronym: ICE-DYN Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Building Excellence in Arctic Sea-ICE DYNamics for Offshore Engineering and Safe Maritime Operations Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 888,166 59.21% 888,166 59.21% 2 HAVFORSKNINGSINSTITUTTET NO 366,284 24.42% 366,284 24.42% 3 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN DE 245,550 16.37% 245,550 16.37% Total: 1,500,000 1,500,000 Abstract: ICE-DYN transforms fragmented Arctic sea-ice observations into reliable, uncertainty-informed information for safe maritime operations Arctic environments are undergoing rapid climate-driven transformation, increasing risks for maritime activities, particularly in shallow coastal regions where small inaccuracies in sea level and sea-ice properties (e.g. thickness, freeboard) can affect navigation safety, including Under Keel Clearance (UKC). Despite advances in Earth observation and modelling, current approaches remain limited by fragmented data, inconsistent methodologies, and insufficient integration of uncertainty into operational decision-making. ICE-DYN addresses these challenges through a coordinated, multidisciplinary framework integrating geodetic methods, advanced satellite data processing and hydrodynamic modelling, implemented in collaboration with leading partners - the Technical University of Munich and the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research. Going beyond conventional approaches, it combines cross-domain scientific integration with objective-driven mobility, structured collaboration, institutional strengthening, and stakeholder engagement to co-develop application-oriented solutions. The project will deliver a pan-Arctic, harmonised and geodetically consistent dataset of sea level and sea-ice properties, optimised for coastal regions. These outputs will provide reliable, uncertainty-informed environmental information for safe maritime operations (incl.UKC assessment), with additional relevance for offshore engineering applications, contributing to European priorities on climate adaptation and sustainable maritime transport. Through integrated capacity building, dissemination, and strengthened research governance, ICE-DYN will enhance TalTech’s research and institutional capacity. Project outcomes will be embedded into academic curricula, supporting the next generation of engineers and positioning Taltech as a competitive contributor within Europe. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340940/ICE-DYN-20/07/2026-19:50:27 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) The proposal clearly states objectives and sub-objectives, which is very good. All sub-objectives are provided with very good KPIs that address the work programme, though they are sometimes limited and generic, as they primarily focus on research quantity rather than the quality of the results. Additionally, the number of conference contributions is heavily overestimated, given that research is only a sub-part of this proposal. The objective for non-academic reputation is superficially treated. --------- The objectives are clear, relevant, and measurable. They address a well-defined scientific niche combining marine geodesy, satellite altimetry, hydrodynamic modeling, and sea-ice applications. The targets for datasets, methods, publications, mobility, training, and proposals are relevant and appropriate for monitoring progress. The objectives are pertinent to Twinning, as they address research excellence of the coordinator, links with leading partners, researcher mobility, research- management capacity, and integration into European research networks. A minor shortcoming is that the link between some scientific targets and the expected capacity-building outcomes is not always fully explicit, particularly regarding technology readiness progression and conference visibility. --------- The proposal's objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable, with KIPs clearly identified. The objectives align well with the WP: advanced research capacities and excellence of the coordinator, with ambitious yet realistic goals set; strengthened strategic ties with the leading institutions, through joint projects, publications, and mobility; raised the coordinator's reputation and attractiveness, engaging in topical research networks; strengthened coordinator's research management capacity; the targets for novel R&I collaboration approaches are viable, aiming at identified opportunities to promote the coordinator's work; and the researchers mobility is increased within the consortium with a well-motivated objectives set. --------- Objectives are SMART and logically structured, although the main objective presents a minor shortcoming by focusing solely on scientific/research aspects. However, in the Specific Objectives, all required aspects are present and well-defined. The proposal is highly relevant to the Work Programme, highlighting the capacity building of the widening partner, solid collaboration between scientific and administrative staff, and the enhancement of the coordinator's reputation. The inclusion of transversal teams, innovative mobility methodologies, and well-aligned industrial participation ensures the credibility and strategic relevance of the proposed action. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? The methodology provided sounds very good. Specifically, the early link for the EU Joint Research Center and the provision of a reusable open training course are outstanding. The very specific plans for the open science practices, indicating relevant repositories and measures, are excellent. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. The research component is clearly focused on marine geodesy, satellite altimetry, hydrodynamic modeling, and sea-ice applications, and the sequence from dataset harmonization to modeling integration and pilot engineering application is logical. The proposal also includes relevant Twinning measures, such as mobility, training schools, workshops, stakeholder interaction, and research- management strengthening. A minor shortcoming is that the methodology does not always explain in sufficient detail how validation results are translated into capacity-building outputs for the coordinator. Open Science practices are well integrated through a Data Management Plan, FAIR principles, open repositories, metadata, persistent identifiers, and sharing of datasets, software, and workflows where licensing permits. --------- The proposal's methodology is appropriate for achieving the objectives. The proposal implements a systematically coordinated exchange framework. Engagement in /organization of conferences, workshops, and joint training is thoroughly presented and is convincing. The research component is well planned, with clear identification of the gaps to be addressed. The need to advance sea-ice research capability and the opportunities offered by the integration of satellite altimetry and remote sensing data are well identified. The actions and methodology are sound and appropriate for achieving the objectives. The coordinator's management capacities are improved through a structured approach based on the European Competence Framework for Research Managers. Open Science practices are adequately integrated in the proposal. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures are robust and expertly tailored to the project's objectives. The networking and training methodology, including staff exchanges and expert visits, is coherent and highly feasible. A standout feature is the inclusion of the coordinator's baseline, which is critical for precisely measuring ambition and real impact. The research component is correctly addressed, articulating clear progress beyond the state of the art while properly integrating the gender dimension into the research content. Additionally, the research management strategy provides a detailed assessment of the coordinator's current standing and offers a structured, viable framework for sustainable capacity improvement. Open Science practices are comprehensively integrated into the methodology, aligning with Horizon Europe standards for transparency and data sharing. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340940/ICE-DYN-20/07/2026-19:50:27 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? The project results are credible, given the niche topic of arctic ice modeling for shipping. The proposal is very good at identifying relevant stakeholders to help deliver the project's results. Additionally, appropriate KPIs are very well addressed, not just counting internal output but also the external interest. Industrial exploitation and respective KPIs, which are important for non-academic reputation, are not fully demonstrated. --------- The project results are credible and relevant to the expected Twinning outcomes, particularly in strengthening the coordinator's scientific capacity, links with leading partners, researcher mobility, research-management capability, and integration into European research networks. The expected results on datasets, methods, training, mobility, publications, and follow-up proposals are of sufficient scale. The indicators are generally adequate and cover scientific outputs, collaboration, mobility, training, and stakeholder engagement. A shortcoming is that some indicators are too ambitious or not fully operationalized, particularly the external use of datasets, operational uptake, proposal success rate, and high conference visibility. Several indicators measure outputs more than impact. --------- The project results are credible and target the expected outcomes of the WP well. The scale of the impacts is sufficient and important. In particular, joint research results are well-positioned to support innovative R&D methodologies for maritime applications. Engagement with key stakeholders, beyond academia and the participating countries, is commendable. The proposed indicators are adequate for measuring the expected impacts. The KPIs are carefully designed and presented in great detail, providing a clear view of the different categories of impact measurement. --------- The proposed results are credible, well-scaled, and demonstrably aligned with the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. The pathways to impact are supported by clear role definitions and specific deliverables. While the indicators for scientific results and monitoring are generally adequate, a minor shortcoming is noted: although the proposal explicitly mentions fostering women's research participation and leadership, it fails to provide dedicated KPIs for monitoring this progress. Furthermore, the absence of quantitative indicators for private sector investment, intellectual property (IP) outcomes, and the generation of innovative services limits the ability to fully assess and track the project's long-term impacts beyond scientific outputs. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are sufficient but very generic. They specifically lack details on relevant journals/conferences, where the activities shall be placed. Also, the alignment of the R&D topics to the specific dissemination and exploitation measures in insufficiently done. Moreover, it is weakly justified the number of relevant events given the high KPI for presentations targeted by the project. Given the geopolitical situation, the challenges and barriers regarding the mid- to long-term availability of satellite data as a crucial input for this project are not fully developed. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are suitable and cover relevant audiences, including researchers, students, hydrographic and maritime stakeholders, offshore engineering actors, and Arctic research networks. Publications, open datasets, training material, stakeholder activities, and workshops are relevant to maximize outcomes. The proposal identifies relevant barriers, including data gaps, stakeholder uptake, and continuity beyond the project. A shortcoming is that operational stakeholder uptake is not sufficiently substantiated, reducing the credibility of the wider applied impact. Intellectual property management is adequately addressed, with open sharing foreseen where allowed. --------- Dissemination measures are presented in detail, providing a suitable approach for targeting different stakeholders. The communication strategy is well-designed, with measures paired to key messages and KPIs/timing. The exploitation measures are compelling, though presented with less detail. The barriers to the project's impact are clear and analyzed in great detail. The proposed mitigation of the barriers is credible and appropriate. IPR management and protection are adequate within the scope of the project. --------- Dissemination and communication measures are well-structured and impactful, with strong engagement with the industrial sector and clearly identified stakeholders. However, a minor shortcoming is noted in the exploitation strategy, which exhibits contradictions and fails to align fully with the IP management approach. IP management is addressed broadly and is not sufficiently tailored to the project's specific exploitable results. While external scientific barriers are correctly analyzed, mitigation measures for research management barriers remain somewhat generic. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340940/ICE-DYN-20/07/2026-19:50:27 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? The work plan is well-structured, clearly indicating each partner's contribution, including a specific task for risk management, which is excellent. However, "Early outreach" is scheduled late in the project. Some deliverables are assigned to several beneficiaries, making responsibilities unclear. It is also unclear how long-term capacity-building is realized. The budget allocation seems inappropriate, e.g., the cost per travel varies widely across partners. WP2 includes too much travel costs budgeted, given the short researchers' working time allocated to it. Budgeting laptops is weakly justified, as it is unclear why existing personnel need alternative equipment for writing and admin tasks. For the planned researchers at BE3, the personnel cost rates are overestimated relative to benchmark values, moreover, the high number of those senior researchers is not fully explained. Lastly, scientific/administrative risks are well addressed. --------- The work plan is well structured and follows a logical sequence from research activities to mobility, institutional strengthening, dissemination, and coordination. The work packages are interrelated, and the coordinator has a central role. A minor shortcoming is that some deliverables and milestones show timing or consistency issues, and some activities, especially mobility, training, conference participation, and stakeholder interaction, appear too demanding for the allocated effort. The risk assessment is relevant and includes technical, data, mobility, staffing, and institutional risks. A minor shortcoming is that some risks related to validation conditions, data robustness, and technical integration are not fully assessed. --------- The work plan is effective, with logically timed interrelated work packages. The resource distribution is appropriate. The task descriptions provide a detailed and convincing picture of the planned implementation, with carefully designed links between the different work packages and individual tasks. However, there is an apparent discrepancy in the effort allocation between the leading institutions. The implementation risks are described clearly, and the mitigation measures are convincing. --------- While WPs are technically sound, the proposal fails to align with the Lump Sum structure. Specifically, the absence of relevant deliverables by mid-project hinders the monitoring process. Regarding resource distribution, some WPs show imbalances, with partners' efforts being significantly lower than those of the coordinator, compromising the achievement of planned objectives. The planned purchase of laptops is deemed technically incoherent and unjustified. While scientific risks are addressed, strategic risks are insufficiently identified. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? The project aligns well the expertise from the leading institutes with the coordinator. The support of the widening partner is very good and backed up, and it identified team members for the research component. A key person is identified for administrative capacity building, but the team on that matter lacks further details. Expertise and infrastructure are very good. The involvement of industry and end-users is planned, which is good. --------- The consortium includes recognized leading partners with complementary expertise in Arctic ocean modeling, sea-ice processes, satellite altimetry, retracking, and remote sensing. The leading partners provide relevant support through methodological transfer, mobility, training, joint supervision, access to models and data practices, and support for future proposals. The roles are generally appropriate, with the coordinator clearly positioned as the main Widening beneficiary and scientific integrator. The expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the tasks, combining marine geodesy, modeling, satellite observations, and engineering applications. A minor shortcoming is that the applied component has limited direct end-user involvement. Industrial/commercial involvement is limited, but acceptable for a Twinning action, focused mainly on scientific and institutional capacity building. --------- The consortium includes an internationally leading research institute and an internationally leading university. The seed collaboration between the partners is in place, providing a good foundation for expanding and strengthening their links. The support from the leading institutions is adequate for the implementation of the project. The coordinator leverage partners to position itself as a contributor to the sea ice remote sensing/maritime engineering domain. The partners' roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project objectives. The task allocation is carefully considered and aligns well with the envisioned project roles. The industrial/commercial involvement is realized through the participation of key stakeholders in the international maritime domain and is appropriate for the exploitation of the results. --------- The consortium is qualified and scientifically robust. Overall, the support provided by the leading institutions to the coordinator is adequate, and the institutional approach is sound. A minor shortcoming is identified in one of the WPs, where the partners' support is low. This insufficient resource allocation puts at risk achieving the objectives linked to this WP, even though the consortium's support remains well-structured and effective for the overall project's implementation. Partners' roles and responsibilities are well-defined and suited to the strategic objectives. The consortium is qualified and scientifically robust, featuring internationally leading research institutions that provide expertise aligned with the project's technical requirements. Industrial and commercial involvement is adequate, moving beyond simple identification to a proactive strategy to engage target sectors and stakeholders to foster involvement. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101340940/ICE-DYN-20/07/2026-19:50:27 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed, and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators are a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal, and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340940/ICE-DYN-20/07/2026-19:50:27 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T19:50:32 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101338491 Proposal acronym: AGORA-OSA Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Advancing Governance Capacities for Open Strategic Autonomy in Europe Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 683,990 45.67% 683,990 45.67% 2 UNIVERSITEIT UTRECHT NL 303,874.63 20.29% 303,874.63 20.29% 3 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON UK 265,075 17.70% 265,075 17.70% 4 FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER DE 244,868.75 16.35% 244,868.75 16.35% ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG EV Total: 1,497,808.38 1,497,808.38 Abstract: The objective of AGORA-OSA project is to develop a new generation of world-class research and policy capabilities that enable scholars to study and practitioners to develop new policy making and governance practices that enable EU and its members states to build open strategic autonomy (OSA) in their long-term science, technology and innovation (STI) policies. TalTech, in partnership with Utrecht University, University College London, and Fraunhofer ISI, will map and synthesise emerging governance practices in the EU, Estonia, the Netherlands, Germany and UK on OSA governance in the context of STI policies and practices. We will also develop novel interactive and co-creative knowledge transfer methodologies and strategic research management tools to transfer these research insights to European policy makers, industry representatives, researchers and research managers. The overall ambition of the project is to improve the capabilities of European research and innovation ecosystems to integrate OSA principles into general STI, sustainability, competitiveness and resilience policies and practices. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101338491/AGORA-OSA-20/07/2026-16:45:06 1/6  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal has a promising aim, which is to develop a new generation of world-class research and policy capabilities that enable scholars to study and practitioners to develop new policy-making and governance practices that enable the EU and its member states to build open strategic autonomy (OSA) in their long- term science, technology and innovation (STI) policies. The proposal's strategic vision is credible, with clear & achievable objectives. The proposal’s objectives are aligned with those of the Work Programme and can yield results: improved research capacities of beneficiaries; stronger strategic ties between beneficiaries; higher institutional reputation and attractiveness; stronger staff research profiles of the coordinator; and increased researcher mobility. --------- The proposal's objectives are clear, measurable and feasible, with few shortcomings. There is a lack of detail on which objectives are included as foci and what is potentially meant by "some other policy" choices. The broad conceptualisation of short vs. long-term goals does not clarify what are the potential overlaps between long-term goals in its context (e.g. sustainabiltiy and strategic autonomy). The proposal outlines Estonia as an appropriate experimentation case, but does not explain which legacy policies it targets. --------- Each objective is operationalized through a framework of specific activities and tangible deliverables. By defining quantifiable outputs and performance indicators, the proposal establishes a rigorous monitoring mechanism that ensures progress can be tracked and validated throughout the project lifecycle. They are defined on the clearly assessed needs of the beneficiary. The project justifies in a comprehensive manner why it aims to deliver a novel R&I collaboration approach between research institutions with different capacity incorporating targeted joint research, as well as knowledge transfer, staff upskilling, institutional learning, collaborative partnership, and sustainable long-term excellence transfer. --------- Whereas the research topic’s relevance and excellence per se are undisputable, the proposed Twinning CSA’s objectives are not fully unambiguously presented: while comprehensible and actionable in principle, their presentation suffers from clarity and consistency. Save limited (minimalistic) scope of the R&I component (as only explorative research is foreseen), most of the objectives are aligned with the Work Programme's objectives. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The composition suggests that host country can overcome a "performance paradox": while the university is strong in software and digital governance, these capabilities are not yet integrated with hardware, energy, or materials research, leaving the institution ill-equipped to tackle challenges such as integrating OSA and resilience into R&I pathways. All these aspects are reflected in the methodology through the SWOT analysis and the WP. The proposal includes a relevant conceptual approach and activities, including a joint research component and a two-way knowledge transfer model. Particular attention is paid to the use of AI. Open science practices are part of the methodology, which enhances the chances of achieving the proposal objectives. The research data management is fully in line with the FAIR principles. --------- The project's activities and methodology are appropriate to achieve the objectives. The proposal relies largely on identifying novel policy designs through co- creation with policymakers, but does not develop how the new governance capabilities will be unearthed. Relying solely on personal contacts in public bodies without a methodological design of the interviews limits their potential to uncover new, strategically relevant information. The joint supervision may not overcome the problem with the length of the TalTech's PhD program, which is dependent on 3 published papers. The proposal provides limited detail on the execution and excellence of the activities, related to the development of the executive course, and the transfer of capacity build up. Open science is adequately integrated. --------- The main proposed activities of the project and the methodology are excellent to deliver the objectives. Each objective has been connected to a specific working package, starting with the research component clearly defined. The project also has a distinct Research Management work package, that is clearly tasked to improve the management capacities of the coordinator. However, a shortcoming is that the SWOT analysis used to identify project challenges and mitigation measures is overly broad, with several components lacking sufficient detail or explanation. Open Science practices are very well explained and integrated. --------- The entire project’s effort centres around the research endeavour, rather than the latter one being just one of components. The RQ is of explorative nature – not quite allowing for the development of an actionable “model” for “policy and governance innovations” in order to future-proof the EU’s OSA. The discussion of methodology chiefly revolves around broad (ambiguous) presentation of key lines of effort, which, again, chiefly – if not exclusively – revolve around “academic activities”; staff exchange/visits between partners foreseen, and so are summer/winter schools for ECRs, as well as “regular” research seminars and networking. Potential challenges (esp. long-term commitment/life beyond project) are insufficiently addressed. The project’s Open Science strategy pledges commitment and indicates a few data/publication repositories. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101338491/AGORA-OSA-20/07/2026-16:45:06 2/6  2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- AGORA-OSA's path to achieving its key outcomes capitalises on the strengths of the consortium members, their approaches to enhancing their reputation, improving gender balance, and developing a new cohort of researchers over the next three years. The realism of the outcomes is reflected in a robust assessment of the required range of activities (KPI) and in an understanding of the risks and how to address them. Among the outcomes of greatest significance to the EU are: the development of novel approaches to R&I collaboration with increased mobility (inwards and outwards) and greater creativity among researchers; policy and structural impacts and stimulus for institutional and systemic reforms; and an improved R&I culture in the host country. --------- The proposal suggests a credible list of verifiable metrics, but it does not shed sufficient light on how they will be achieved, which is a shortcoming. The mitigation strategy for non-involvement of policymakers focuses on OECD networks, but this may not guarantee their involvement or novel insights. The indicators can adequately measure the impact, but the pathway to achieve those is inadequate developed in the proposal. It is a weakness that the intended impacts build on previous experiences, without indicating how these will be achieved in the future. --------- The proposal addresses this criterion effectively, demonstrating a clear logical framework. Each objective is directly mapped to a corresponding outcome and aligned with specific work packages, while the individual impact of each activity is comprehensively articulated in the impact summary. However, a minor shortcoming is noted regarding the balance of performance metrics. The monitoring framework focuses heavily on quantifiable indicators, leaving the qualitative dimensions of the proposed outcomes comparatively underdeveloped. --------- Out of expected outcomes, the following seem to matter the most: Coordinator’s improved research excellence and capacities; strategic collaboration and Coordinator’s international insertion; and its “raised reputation, research profile, attractiveness and competitiveness” – all of which are feasible. Yet, the pathway to achieving some of the outcomes is not sufficiently and convincingly outlined. Whereas the Twinning project bid lists quantitative indicators, their qualitative side occasionally lacks substantiation. Moreover, AGORA-OSA’s presented pathways to impact are partly overlapping and circular in their nature. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination strategy reflects previous project experience. The action plan demonstrates the quantitative nature of the proposed activities (international conferences, publications, schools, and international bilateral knowledge transfer session). However, the proposed strategy is traditional in terms of communication. Facebook and LinkedIn are not sufficiently appealing to younger generations. ResearchGate and OSF do not guarantee youth engagement, which is important for the project's long-term sustainability. The blog articles might not fill the gap left by the lack of more popular platforms. The project clearly analysed the barriers to impact from outside, and the mitigation measures are appropriate. --------- The dissemination activities are varied (publications, sessions, trainings, media), and provide a strong account of dissemination with an expectation for impact beyond the project. However they have few shortcomings: it's unclear how the executive training for civil servants will be developed, where the knowledge transfer pilot will take place, and what the governance "innovation project" aimed at exploiting research findings will entail. The project barriers are mentioned in the previous section and focus solely on the co-creation with policymakers, but lack detail on the weaknesses and threats in the SWOT analysis. The IPR protection is assigned to the consortium agreement's board, but the section does not explain in detail any principles (e.g. transferability, copyright, etc.). --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are treated each with a specific and detailed plan, that includes a comprehensive target groups analysis. The project clearly analysed the external barriers to its impact on separate categories and provides detailed mitigation measures. The project aims at taking research results beyond academia, so the exploitation strategy focused on sustainability and up-scaling is bold and aimed to achieve results beyond the project’s duration and scope. All actions have a clearly explained short term impact and long term impact. Exploitation of the main results has been adequately explained. --------- The DEC measures are suitable and potentially impactful - but largely confined to project duration. Although the project refers to a couple of barriers of “science-policy interaction”, the ways to mitigate them are framed as preemptively solved “by design”: eg, engaging policymakers is presented as a potential barrier (whereas it’s also one of the key “impacts”) and the mitigation strategy (save the advisory board nomination) is anchored in the excellence of the partners forming the consortium. Other than authorship-/research-related, IP rights are not directly featuring as a manageable issue within this Twinning bid. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101338491/AGORA-OSA-20/07/2026-16:45:06 3/6  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The project's work plan is comprehensive, efficient, and well-structured. Work packages are interconnected, and resource allocation is appropriately completed and coordinated. Implementation risks are presented logically, and the mitigation measures are fully adequate. In addition to the standard measures, an Advisory Board of leading researchers and policymakers is proposed;. It is particularly worth noting that, in addition to the coordinator, who leads all the packages, the leading University is also present in each of them, which seems important given this project participant's vast experience. --------- The work plan is well structured and planned overall. Work packages are sufficiently interrelated, and the distribution of resources is adequate, to the exception of the fact that senior scientists receive a substantial amount of the support. Another shortcoming lies in the potential overlaps between some WPs. Implementation risks are clearly described and addressed with appropraite mitigation measures. --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured, and logically timed. All work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources. The risks to implementation are clearly described and the mitigation measures are adequate. --------- The workplan is logically construed and feasible; milestones and deliverables duly planned, indicators not fully provided. AGORA-OSA proposal entails a relatively high personnel effort (and cost), which, however, may be justified by the heavy emphasis on research production itself and research capacity building. Regarding the latter, the lump sum allocation for training ECRs is not clearly assessable. The research component subsumes nearly half of Coordinator’s PMs allocation, which might come at the expense of achieving other expected outcomes. Implementation risks are outlined, including the risk of failing to recruit ECRs (yet, the risk of completing two 4-year PhD studies after the project’s financing period ends is not considered explicitly. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium is well-balanced: in addition to the main beneficiary, it includes leading HEIs and a research centre. The collaborative experience of all consortium members is noteworthy. The application outlines how program beneficiaries will receive the support needed to successfully implement the project. The consortium's expertise is generally aligned with the stated objectives. However, regarding the alignment of partners' roles and responsibilities with the project's goals, it is not entirely clear why the coordinator is taking on such a significant share of the assigned tasks. Given the coordinator's desire to learn from more experienced consortium members (as clearly reflected in the text), their greater involvement would facilitate achieving this objective. Therefore, the application does not sufficiently explain the rationale for this division of responsibilities. --------- The consortium includes well-renowned partner institutions. The support is varied and adequate. There is a minor shortcoming: some of the work is focused on individual countries that overlap with those of project partners, leaving it unclear how the activity supports the coordinator. Roles and responsibilities of partners are adequately distributed. The expertise of two of the partners is highly appropriate and that of one of the partners is broadly appropriate. Although these were mentioned in the introduction, the project provided no clarity if energy security, critical raw materials, trade policy reform will be within the scope. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions with relevant expertise, that provide clear support to the beneficiary to implement the project. The partners roles and responsibilities are appropriate to the project's objectives. However, the current capacity and infrastructure of the Widening beneficiary are partially misaligned with its assigned responsibilities. Specifically, the proposal lacks sufficient justification for the beneficiary leading all work packages, which is a concern given the complex administrative and coordination demands inherent to a project of this scale. --------- The mix of academic and policy-shaping partners is conducive to achieving COO’s research and policy impact excellence objectives. The partners are sustainably involved across WPs, with due channels for expertise/excellence transfer foreseen. Their complementary expertise and experience (in research, academic training, and policy-shaping) might be of advantage for both Coordinator and this project. Yet, consortium members’ direct engagement with the Twinning project’s core subject (OSA) varies. Scope of the application 101338491/AGORA-OSA-20/07/2026-16:45:06 4/6  Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments 101338491/AGORA-OSA-20/07/2026-16:45:06 5/6  This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101338491/AGORA-OSA-20/07/2026-16:45:06 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T16:45:12 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101339428 Proposal acronym: MATISSE Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Materials AI for Scientific Synthesis and Exploration Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 761,681.25 50.78% 761,681.25 50.78% 2 DEUTSCHES FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM FUR KUNSTLICHE DE 459,215.49 30.62% 459,215.49 30.62% INTELLIGENZ GMBH 3 OULUN YLIOPISTO FI 278,987.98 18.60% 278,987.98 18.60% Total: 1,499,884.72 1,499,884.72 Abstract: TalTech is an Estonian technical university with strong expertise in numerous functional materials, but the integration of AI-driven methods into materials discovery remains limited. MATISSE will transform how materials research screens scientific literature. Critical evidence on synthetic strategies and key performance indicators at both material and device levels is scattered across a rapidly evolving, heterogeneous body of publications, complicating the identification of research gaps and slowing experimental progress. MATISSE will create an expert-guided AI workflow and Materials Knowledge Platform that converts this fragmented literature into a structured, provenance-linked, evidence-based approach to advance experiment planning. The project will start with well-characterized CdS/ZnO systems to calibrate and validate AI-extracted knowledge, then extend the methodology to high-complexity systems such as cation exchange and textile-integrated materials. MATISSE will enhance TalTech’s expertise and human capacity in AI-driven materials development, build a platform for schema-driven, provenance-aware literature intelligence, and strengthen TalTech’s institutional capacity in research management, proposal development, and innovation at the interface between materials science and AI. Co- designed extraction workflows, iterative expert validation, targeted materials synthesis and characterization, and an intensive program of staff exchanges, joint seminars, hands-on schools, and co-supervised MSc/PhD projects with DFKI and the University of Oulu will ensure effective transfer of knowledge and know-how. The AI-driven platform will deliver harmonized parameter maps, advanced querying, and visual exploration across thousands of studies, following FAIR and open-science principles, reveal underexplored material-process-property combinations, and position TalTech as a European leader in expert-guided literature intelligence for advanced material technologies. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.75 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101339428/MATISSE-20/07/2026-21:31:56 1/7  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The main objective - strengthening the widening beneficiary’s research and institutional capacity - is clearly defined, along with the specific objectives. These objectives are comprehensively detailed, with a well-defined scope, and are explicitly tied to Key Performance Indicators. The objectives are achievable. This framework ensures that the objectives are measurable and verifiable. The project is well aligned with the work programme. It will build the widening beneficiary’s research capacity and combine it with targeted capacity building in project development, research communication, innovation transfer, industry collaboration, research management and international networking. Additionally, it will promote increased inbound and outbound mobility. --------- The clarity and pertinence of the project's objectives are mostly clear, measurable and verifiable. However, the project's objectives to be achieved are not well elaborated. The proposals' objectives are mostly pertinent to those of the Work Programme, identifying: improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiary; stronger strategic ties with leading institutions; higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator; and strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator. Collaboration approaches are mentioned. However, novel R&I collaborations are not sufficiently well demonstrated. --------- Proposal objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable: advancing coordinator excellence in AI-assisted materials research, producing quantifiable outputs (joint publications, patents, trained researchers), and building institutional capacity within a realistic timeframe and budget Proposal addresses the Work Programme objectives: it improves coordinator research excellence through AI-driven materials science; strengthens strategic ties with leading institutions through synergic activities; raises coordinator institutional reputation and staff research profiles; builds research management capacities via a dedicated upgraded support team; introduces novel R&I collaboration integrating AI, data science and materials research; and increases researcher mobility. --------- The objectives defined are described in clear way and are measurable, verifiable and achievable with quantified KPIs. The objectives are pertinent and described in sufficient way, in particular the applicants include activities related to improved research capacities, stronger ties, measures to increase reputation, strengthened research capacity and increased inward and outward mobility. However, the novel R&I approaches are not fully convincingly clarifying which is the innovation behind the reuse of existing knowledge and how in concrete will benefit advanced materials. In addition, the description of some objectives is very synthetic, as in the case of the platform integrated into joint research or the predefined scientific usability threshold. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The overall methodological concept is extensively described, credible and fully appropriate for reaching the project objectives. Challenges are identified and well- suited mitigation measures are presented. For the research component, the scientific strategy is clearly presented. The capacity building methodology is highly appropriate with clearly defined transfer mechanisms and training architecture operating at different levels: scientific and methodological transfer, researcher development including early career researchers and institutional strengthening. An appropriate variety of activities is presented, which are fully appropriate and realistic to achieve the objectives mentioned in the proposal. The described Open Science practices are suited for the expected work and delivery of the objectives and the proposed implementation practices follow the open science approach. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, and summer schools are mentioned; however, the expert visits and joint summer schools are not well elaborated. The research component work package for the development and implementation of new ideas is not sufficiently elaborated. The Open Science practices are adequately integrated. --------- Methodology is sound and appropriate but mitigation measures are not addressed in detail. Planned activities include staff exchanges with leading partners, expert visits, training schools, workshops, joint summer school, and outreach. The research WP develops and implements novel AI model tuning methods for materials characterisation, advancing the state of the art. Gender dimension is addressed. A dedicated institutional strengthening activity will reinforce coordinator management support team and processes Open Science practices are fully integrated across the project: FAIR data principles, open-access publication mandates, and data management plans apply to all activities, ensuring transparency and reproducibility throughout the project lifecycle. --------- The methodology is described, but structure, challenges and mitigation measures are not convincingly linked together. The focus on a specific case study somewhat limits the proposal´s broader ambition of reorganizing the literature around advanced materials. The applicants don’t describe in sufficient way which are in concrete the steps that will be undertaken to use the case study proposed as a pilot. Even if all the required twinning measures are included (e.g. staff exchanges, etc), it's not evident which will be the investigated material category/application. The research component is not fully convincing, in fact the proposal lack details on how the proposed actions translate into concrete applications and outcomes relevant to industry. The research management, on the other hand, is well described with dedicated actions. Open Science practices are described in exhaustive way, with the inclusions of a data management plan and FAIR principles. 101339428/MATISSE-20/07/2026-21:31:56 2/7  Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The project’s outcomes are credible, appropriately scaled, and impactful, aligning with the expected results of the Work Programme. The pathways to achieve the scientific and methodological impact as well as the institutional, innovation and networking impact are clearly elaborated and excellently suited. The key outcomes encompass enhanced scientific excellence, increased competitiveness, strengthened collaboration between academia and industry, and heightened international visibility. Suitable indicators to quantitively and qualitatively measure the impacts of the project are chosen. --------- The project results are credible and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. The proposed indicators, quantitative and qualitative, are adequate to measure the expected impacts with regard to scientific output, but it is not very clear concerning investments. --------- Proposal results are of sufficient scale and credibility to achieve the Work Programme’s expected outcomes. The core outputs include: a scalable digital platform for materials knowledge and research; reusable training assets; and strengthened institutional capacity at coordinator and partner level, with measurable contributions. Results will directly benefit researchers, graduate students and innovation actors, supporting scientific excellence, collaboration and knowledge transfer. The proposed performance indicator framework is appropriate and well structured, combining quantitative indicators (publications, exchanges, industry engagement, platform use) with qualitative indicators tracking institutional reputation, research management capacity and international visibility. --------- The project results are credible, but the scale is not fully sufficient to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the work-programme, since the pathway to achieve the proposed results is not sufficiently explained (e.g. an harmonization of the literature on advanced material would require shared access across institutions and additional access rights when consulting new sources, the proposal lack details on how this situations will be managed and where the information will be centralized and stored). The proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) are adequate to measure the expected impacts, but they are not sufficiently ambitious in numbers to make credible that after the end of the project the impact on the coordinator will be durable. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities 101339428/MATISSE-20/07/2026-21:31:56 3/7  a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are very well specified, sound and suitable. The activities through diverse channels are well identified and will be effective. Specific target audiences are excellently addressed. The project will have a wide lasting impact beyond the project’s duration and scope on an economic, innovation, societal and research level. The project clearly identifies and analyzes risks across different dimensions, for example, institutional, political and technological dimensions. The proposed mitigation measures are well conceived and appropriate. Intellectual property management is described well and adequate. --------- The dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are suitable and impactful beyond the project's duration and scope. The project had clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project. Most of the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate. The IP management and protection are not always adequate and well elaborated. --------- Dissemination, exploitation and communication activities are well structured to ensure impact beyond the project duration. Open training assets, tutorials and summer school modules will remain accessible through the AI Materials Knowledge Platform, supporting long-term reuse by the wider research community. The exploitation strategy includes co-development with industry stakeholders and capacity building to strengthen institutional sustainability. Barriers related to fragmented materials data infrastructure and limited industrial uptake are identified, with mitigation measures including training, networking, researcher mobility and fellowship support. IP management is appropriate, balancing open science and FAIR principles with protection of commercially sensitive results. --------- The dissemination, communication and exploitation measures are described in adequate way. However, the proposal doesn’t describe in sufficient way the industrial stakeholders in the targeted groups. The project has clearly analyzed the external barriers and provided an exhaustive description of the project response. The IPR management is not sufficently adequate, being based on the standard consortium agreement, without integrating specific measures about how the knowledge generated by new proprietary data sets will be shared and managed among the partners and with respect to external sources (e.g. accessing information on the data set that are also owned by an external owner such as a publishing company: the applicant don't clarify enough how they will handle these situations). Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339428/MATISSE-20/07/2026-21:31:56 4/7  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The tasks in the work plan and respective work packages (WPs) are thoroughly detailed. The overall structure, including the timing and interconnections between the WPs, is well-designed. Deliverables and milestones are carefully planned, encompassing all tasks. The project management framework is both suitable and clearly articulated. Additionally, the allocation of tasks and resources aligns effectively with the proposed activities within the project. The risk assessment is convincing. The proposed mitigation measures are extensively described and will be effective. --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured and logically timed with work packages interrelated with an appropriate distribution of resources. However, all WPs last for the entire project duration. Lump Sum is consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal. The risks relative to implementation are mostly described and the mitigation measures are also mostly adequate. However, a risk related to a partner leaving the consortium was not clearly identified. --------- The proposal features a rigorous, well-structured work plan with logically sequenced work packages covering research, training, dissemination, and management. Interdependencies between WPs are clearly mapped, ensuring coherent progression toward objectives. Resources are optimally distributed across partners, with person-months, budget allocations, and timelines fully consistent between Part B and the Lump Sum table. Risks are thoroughly identified across technical, and operational dimensions, with proportionate mitigation measures demonstrating strong implementation readiness. --------- The work-plan is well described and structured in logic way and the timing and the allocation of resources is coherent with the project objective. However, the activities described in the research work package are not clearly explained, in fact the work plan lack details on activities related to handle appropriately a multi- modal data set, which kind of AI tools integrating in the work-flow, which partner will train and validate the model and which strategy will be followed for missing values. The risks are described in poor way, in fact the problems analyzed cover only partially the complexity deriving from handling a multi – modal data set, not only in terms of applied data science, but also in terms of cybersecurity and robustness (e.g. different institutions working on a large data set on-line needs clear access rules and responsibilities). 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise 101339428/MATISSE-20/07/2026-21:31:56 5/7  a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions. The consortium composition is strong and well suited to the project’s aims. The leading institutions are committed to providing the necessary support to the Widening beneficiary to ensure successful implementation. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriately defined and aligned with the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well-suited to the assigned tasks. The engagement with industry and external stakeholders is highly suited for the exploitation of the results of the project. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The leading institutions provide the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project. The partner's role and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project's objectives. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. The industrial/commercial involvement is adequate for the exploitation of results. --------- The consortium strategically combines internationally leading research institutions, ensuring authoritative scientific mentorship and genuine capacity transfer. Leading partners provide structured, sustained support through staff exchanges, joint research, and training. Partner roles are clearly delineated, reflecting complementary expertise perfectly aligned with assigned tasks. Infrastructure and competencies across all nodes directly match project requirements. Stakeholder involvement is purposeful and well-integrated, strengthening exploitation pathways and ensuring results translate effectively into innovation-relevant outcomes beyond academia. --------- The consortium includes leading institutions from European countries responding to the requirement of the call. The leading institutions provide the coordinator with an established expertise in sustainable materials and AI adoption, supporting the execution and potential outcomes of the proposal. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are defined across the different activities and coherent with the objectives of the proposal. The consortium expertise is well aligned with the allocated task, but the research infrastructures made available for the coordinator are not sufficiently described. The industrial involvement is not fully adequate, in fact applicants don’t clearly specify the markets and application fields, and the industrial stakeholder and clusters potentially interested to the exploitation of results are described in vague way. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided 101339428/MATISSE-20/07/2026-21:31:56 6/7  Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101339428/MATISSE-20/07/2026-21:31:56 7/7  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T21:32:02 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101338482 Proposal acronym: NordicTwin Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Advancing Nordic Research Excellence in Digital Twins for Software-Defined Electric Mobility Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 549,325 37.93% 549,325 37.93% 2 AALTO KORKEAKOULUSAATIO SR FI 295,605.63 20.41% 295,605.63 20.41% 3 CHALMERS TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA AB SE 295,631.25 20.41% 295,631.25 20.41% 4 AARHUS UNIVERSITET DK 307,811 21.25% 307,811 21.25% Total: 1,448,372.88 1,448,372.88 Abstract: NordicTwin aims to strengthen research excellence and innovation capacity at Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech) in the emerging field of Digital Twin (DT)-enabled software-defined electromobility. The project addresses the growing need for advanced modelling, optimisation, and cyber-physical integration methodologies required for next-generation electric vehicles operating under complex and variable Nordic environmental conditions. Through a strategic Twinning collaboration with leading European research partners, Aalto University, Chalmers University of Technology, and Aarhus University, NordicTwin will establish a long-term knowledge exchange platform that combines complementary expertise in digital twins, cyber-physical systems, electric propulsion systems, and intelligent vehicle technologies. The project will implement a comprehensive programme of joint research activities, staff exchanges, workshops, PhD schools, and networking actions to accelerate competence development at TalTech and foster durable scientific collaboration within the European Research Area. These activities will support the development and validation of DT-enabled approaches for modelling, optimisation, and system integration of software- defined electric vehicles. By strengthening interdisciplinary research capabilities and research management capacity, NordicTwin will enhance TalTech’s integration into leading European research networks and contribute to advancing intelligent, sustainable, and digitally enabled mobility systems in Europe. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.25 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101338482/NordicTwin-20/07/2026-19:13:32 1/6  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal’s objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable. The proposed objectives are fully pertinent to those of the Work Program, addressing all of them. This aspect is very well described in the proposal. --------- The objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable to fit the capacity gap in digital twin for electromobility. The objectives are pertinent to the work programme. They improve the research capacity of the widening beneficiary through technology transfer and competence strengthening. They strengthen strategic links between widening beneficiary and leading institutions through structured collaboration and contribute to higher institutional reputation and attractiveness. They improve the coordinator’s staff research profile and strengthen the coordinator’s research management capacities. They promote novel research and innovation (R&I) collaboration approaches and increase in- and outbound researcher collaboration, and mobility. --------- The proposal provides a set of high level objectives and specific quantitative outcomes; however, it is not clear how objectives and outcomes are linked nor how some objectives are measured and verified, e.g the objective to strengthen research management capacity has no clear corresponding outcome. The proposal objectives are pertinent to those of the Work Programme, namely: improved research capacity of the widening institution will be achieved through the development of the Electric Vehicle focused Digital Twin; higher institutional reputation and staff profiles of the coordinator through systematic enhancement of researcher competence with increased training; and Increased researcher mobility is achieved through the PhD schools and technical workshops. --------- The proposal focuses on a novel approach; the individual objectives are clearly defined and interrelated, but the project's main focus is insufficiently detailed and not fully clear. The objectives are pertinent and clearly aligned with the Work Programme but the proposal does not analyse this alignment in depth. There is a focus on improving both the coordinator's technical and managerial capacities, and indicators are used to evaluate and validate achievements. It will improve its reputation and attract more international sound research and staff, and the promotion measures for this are credible. Novel R&I collaboration approaches will be developed, but they provide insufficient detail on what this exactly entails. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. However, challenges and mitigation measures are insufficiently elaborated. Joint activities such as staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops etc. are very well elaborated. The research component is very well elaborated as it includes novel ideas in the area of research of this proposal. The research management component is very well elaborated. It is realistic to expect that management capacities of the coordinator will be improved. Open Science practices have been thoroughly incorporated and clearly explained. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are broadly sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures. They include Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach. The Research component work package is adequately described, including the development and implementation of new digital twins in electromobility and advancing beyond the state-of-the-art. They implement a Research Management work package/task aimed at strengthening the coordinator’s management capacities through the establishment or upgrading of a dedicated team. Open Science strategies and practices are adequately integrated into the proposal, with appropriate provisions for open access to publications, data management, and knowledge sharing. They are clearly justified and well explained in relation to specific project constraints. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound to deliver the objectives. Staff exchanges, expert visits, training and workshops are considered appropriately. The research component is very thoroughly considered and advancement beyond the state of the art is clear and convincing. A Research Management Work Package is included to improve the management capacities of the coordinator. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis is presented which includes some consideration of challenges; however, specific mitigation measures are not sufficiently detailed. Open Science practices are well integrated with appropriate consideration of publishing and data management. --------- There is enough detail on activities and outcomes, and it is coherent with the work plan. Each verification item has associated KPIs. The activities are linked to a single objective, aligned with the Work Programme, and aimed at improving research and research management. There is an analysis of the challenges; the mitigation measures are generic. The proposal provides insufficient details, e.g., the number of people involved or the timeframe for activities such as staff exchanges. The proposal satisfactorily provides a training and management plan that aims to increase coordinators' capacities and to sustain the impact after the project ends. The roadmap is credible, with measures and verification plans in place. Open Science practices are adequately considered, and a data management plan is included, but there are no specific details about its implementation; instead, only a generic description. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101338482/NordicTwin-20/07/2026-19:13:32 2/6  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The expected project results are very well elaborated. They are credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the work program. The proposal contains several quantitative and qualitative indicators which are precise enough to be validated. Validation measures are clearly explained. Quantitative figures are overall credible and realistic. Only the total amount of months of mobility is questionable in terms of feasibility. --------- The pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts set out in the work programme are credible. The project results are credible, of sufficient scale, and of high relevance to achieving the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. The proposed activities are well-structured, methodologically sound, and aligned with the programme’s strategic objectives. The proposed indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, are appropriate to measure the expected impacts, as they cover key dimensions such as scientific outputs, collaborative activities, institutional recognition, investment leverage, and intellectual property generation. --------- The project results are credible, of sufficient scale and important enough to achieve the expect outcomes of the Work Programme. Targets are provided for a comprehensive set of indicators which are appropriate to the scale of the proposal. The proposed indicators are adequate to measure the expected impacts and are clearly related to specific expected outcomes in the Work Programme; they range over scientific output, collaborations, recognition etc. --------- The proposal strongly focuses on improving research and management capacities, providing credible measures to achieve this. It satisfactorily outlines a sustainability plan to ensure the achievements can be maintained in the midterm scenario, making the proposal credible. The envisaged actions and project results are fully aligned with the expected outcomes of the Work Programme. The proposal provides an adequate number of well-defined KPIs and concrete targets. They are very ambitious and suitable to validate the results from a quantitative point of view. However, there is a lack of detail on how to achieve them. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are appropriate and will remain impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope. The proposal fails to sufficiently analyse the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project. Intellectual property management has been thoroughly incorporated and clearly explained. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are suitable and designed to generate impact beyond the project’s duration and scope, by ensuring sustained visibility, facilitating long-term uptake of results, and supporting continued stakeholder engagement and knowledge transfer. The project has identified external barriers to impact and proposed appropriate mitigation measures that are realistic, well-structured, and aligned with the project’s objectives, thereby strengthening the likelihood of sustained impact. Intellectual property management and protection measures are adequate, with clear provisions for ownership, access rights, and exploitation pathways, ensuring that results are appropriately safeguarded and can be effectively leveraged. --------- Dissemination activities are well considered, with targets provided for scientific outputs. Exploitation is appropriately addressed with a focus on leveraging results in subsequent activities and integration into research roadmaps; the proposal also identifies key results and considers Intellectual Property protections for these results. Communications plans are insufficiently detailed; it is not sufficiently clear which social media channels will be used nor what engagement targets are envisaged. Barriers to impact and associated mitigations are not considered appropriately. Intellectual Property management is considered appropriately. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication strategies include plans to share the results with a wide range of audiences, including scientific, social, and industrial actors, but they are generic and provide insufficient detail about how they will be applied or on their quality. The analysis of external risks is not satisfactorily provided: only a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats matrix is presented. The research area poses risks that could hinder objectives not adequately analyzed. The proposal provides a plan for intellectual property management based on Responsible–Accountable–Consulted–Informed principles, but it lacks clear information on potential protection. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101338482/NordicTwin-20/07/2026-19:13:32 3/6  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is overall well-structured. The WP are coherently interrelated. However, the work plan does not sufficiently consider milestones on a project level and rather focusses on task-related milestones. As this makes it more difficult to monitor the project progress as a whole, this is a minor shortcoming. The distribution of resources is appropriate and consistent with the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A. Some implementation risks are identified, but several lack clear relevance to the project (e.g. force majeure), and research component-related risks are scarcely addressed. As this underpins following WPs, the risk analysis is insufficient, representing a major shortcoming. --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured, and logically sequenced, with clearly interrelated work packages. The distribution of resources, including person- months, time allocation, and budget in the Lump Sum table, is appropriate and consistent, and aligns coherently across Part B and the Part A budget table of the proposal. The implementation risks are clearly identified and appropriately described, with adequate and realistic mitigation measures in place to minimise potential disruptions and ensure effective project execution. --------- Overall, the work plan is overall effective, comprising a set of logically designed Work Packages (WPs). The scope of the Work Packages is clear and they are suitably divided into tasks with clear descriptions. Timing relationships between WPs are coherent. However, milestones and deliverables are not fully satisfactory. The number of deliverables is large and insufficiently and the milestones have excessive focus on approvals of the project management board. Distribution of resources in terms of person-months, time and lump sum budget is appropriate and consistent across the provided documentation. Implementation risks are well considered with risks being divided into high level categories and sets of mitigations which can apply should the risks materialize. --------- The work plan is coherent with the objectives of the Work Programme and the proposal. The activities are logically planned and coherent, the timeframe is adequate, and the interrelation among them is clear and well presented, including deliverables and milestones to control project development. There is an appropriate distribution of resources, including person-months and time, that is coherent in the proposal and in Parts A, B, and the Lump Sum Table. The coordinator costs include an amount for remaining purchase costs that is insufficiently reflected in the Lump Sum Table, even though the total amount is the same. This is not fully justified and constitutes a minor shortcoming. The risk analysis related to implementation is clearly described and includes adequate mitigation measures, but it lacks information on how a deviation from the initial task could threaten the whole project. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium include internationally leading research institutions/higher education establishments. The leading institutions provide to the widening beneficiaries the necessary support in an adequate manner to successfully implement the project. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure is very well aligned with the allocated tasks. --------- The consortium includes internationally recognized leading research institutions. The leading institutions provide adequate and targeted support to the Widening beneficiaries, ensuring effective knowledge transfer, capacity building, and successful project implementation. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and appropriately aligned with the project’s objectives, ensuring a coherent division of tasks and effective contribution from all consortium members. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks, ensuring that each partner has the necessary capabilities and resources to effectively deliver their assigned responsibilities. The industrial/commercial involvement is adequate to support the effective exploitation of project results, providing relevant expertise, market insight, and pathways for uptake and impact. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The leading institutions provide the necessary support to the Widening beneficiary to successfully implement the project. Partners' roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project's objectives. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure is well aligned with the allocated tasks, with the leading institutions providing expertise on Digital Twins for Cyber Physical Systems, Electric Vehicle energy consumption and charging dynamics and electric drivetrain modelling. The proposal does not have sufficient industrial/commercial involvement, given the exploitation potential. --------- The consortium includes leading international institutions with the required expertise in the research field and in research management. There is a roadmap and concrete actions outlining how the leading institutions will provide the necessary support and how a stable relationship will be maintained after the project ends, to ensure long-term impact. There is a clear description of each participant's role, but some competencies and key expertise are very similar, and the risk of overlap is not addressed. The expertise and infrastructure are coherent with the objectives. Insufficient information is provided on the exploitation of results involving industrial or commercial actors. Scope of the application 101338482/NordicTwin-20/07/2026-19:13:32 4/6  Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments 101338482/NordicTwin-20/07/2026-19:13:32 5/6  This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101338482/NordicTwin-20/07/2026-19:13:32 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T19:13:37 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340146 Proposal acronym: DNAauto Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Diversification of FerryBox usage for semiautonomous environmental DNA sampling and storage Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 601,062.5 40.07% 601,062.5 40.07% 2 NORSK INSTITUTT FOR VANNFORSKNING STI NO 450,268.38 30.02% 450,268.38 30.02% 3 INESC TEC - INSTITUTO DE ENGENHARIADE SISTEMAS PT 448,625 29.91% 448,625 29.91% E COMPUTADORES, TECNOLOGIA E CIENCIA Total: 1,499,955.88 1,499,955.88 Abstract: The DNAauto project strengthens TalTech’s capacity to lead autonomous marine biodiversity monitoring in the Baltic Sea by twinning with two internationally recognised centres of excellence: NIVA in Norway and INESC‑TEC in Portugal. Current marine monitoring relies heavily on labour‑intensive sampling, limited temporal resolution, and scarce taxonomic expertise. Although FerryBox systems already provide continuous physical data and sampling for biogeochemical parameters along fixed ship routes, their potential for high‑frequency environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling remains underused due to technological, operational, and knowledge gaps. DNAauto addresses these barriers by jointly developing a beyond‑state‑of‑the‑art autonomous eDNA sampling and storage system that enables samples to be collected and preserved on board for extended periods without manual intervention. The project integrates technological innovation, hands‑on prototyping, joint sampling campaigns in the Baltic and Skagerrak, and comprehensive training in research management, eDNA workflows, and bioinformatics. Through structured staff exchanges, summer and winter schools, interdisciplinary workshops, and coordinated field activities, the project will build durable technical, molecular, and managerial expertise at TalTech while enhancing collaboration with leading European institutions. DNAauto will generate standardised protocols, interoperable bioinformatics pipelines, open‑access data templates, and a public FerryBox data portal to support wider adoption of autonomous eDNA monitoring. By strengthening institutional excellence, enabling cost‑effective biodiversity assessment, and fostering long‑term strategic partnerships, DNAauto will position TalTech as a regional hub for innovative marine research services and contribute to European efforts to enhance ecosystem monitoring, early‑warning capabilities, and environmental sustainability. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 11.75 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340146/DNAauto-20/07/2026-14:51:15 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal presents clear and coherent objectives, which are on the whole measurable and achievable. The objectives are scientifically relevant and linked to an identified monitoring gap. However, some expected achievements, particularly regional leadership, accredited service provision and long-term uptake of the workflow, are formulated ambitiously and insufficiently supported by specific verification criteria. The objectives are well aligned with the Twinning call. The proposal sufficiently addresses research capacity, strategic ties, institutional reputation, staff skills, research management and mobility. Novel R&I collaboration is credibly addressed through interdisciplinary work. --------- The objectives are clear, mostly achievable and verifiable, as they are linked to concrete outputs such as a prototype, protocols, training, mobility activities and joint proposals. However, measurability is unevenly provided. Several objectives use broad terms without sufficiently providing baselines, quantified targets or clear verification criteria. The objectives are highly pertinent to the Twinning Work Programme. They address the main Twinning aims: raising capacity at the widening coordinator, strengthening links with leading partners, improving staff profiles and institutional attractiveness, developing research-management capacity, creating novel R&I collaboration and increasing mobility. --------- The objectives are clear and measurable, but some of them pose considerable operative challenges and it is unclear it they will be achieved within the duration of the project. The proposal's objectives are pertinent to the Work Programme, as they will clearly improve the research and research management capacities of the widening beneficiary, as well as its attractiveness and international strategic links, while increasing research mobility and R+I collaboration. --------- The objectives are clearly articulated and allocated between technological advancement and early-career researchers and staff training, proving to be both verifiable and feasible. The objectives are highly relevant to the work programme, focusing on high-level training and research capacities for early-career researchers and staff in innovative technologies. The proposal's objectives clearly outlines the implementation of innovation development and training, effectively bolstering the scientific and managerial capacities of the coordinator and the research group. A minor shortcoming is that the proposal provides only limited description of how the objectives will engage the leading institutes with the widening beneficiaries. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed activities are generally sound and appropriate. The methodology combines prototype development, technical training, joint sampling, laboratory and bioinformatics work, research management training and networking. The hands-on approach fits the capacity-building aim. However, the research component combines technological development with training, making the boundary between research and support activities less clear. Validation and performance assessment are not sufficiently detailed. Open Science practices are adequately integrated. The proposal sufficiently addresses open-access publications, FAIR data, public protocols, international repositories, data templates and a public data portal. These measures are appropriate and support wider reuse of results. Some aspects related to data quality control, long-term maintenance of the portal, and conditions for reuse of technically relevant outputs are not sufficiently detailed. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures are very good and appropriate. They combine exchanges, expert visits, workshops, technical training, field activities, schools, mentoring and joint proposal preparation. The methodology is coherent, moving from knowledge transfer and prototype development to protocols, data analysis and networking. The research component is relevant and the research-management activities address a capacity gap at the coordinator. However, the prototype work does not sufficiently provide specific success criteria, such as reliability, contamination control, storage performance or validation thresholds. Training is quantified mainly by events/participants, while competence gains and assessment methods are not sufficiently clear. The research- management upgrade does not sufficiently specify the related team structure, roles nor indicators of improved capacity. Open Science is adequately covered through protocols, data templates, data deposition, open publications and a public portal. --------- The proposed activities are appropriate to increase the research capacities of the coordinating institution. However, the research component is notably focused on the development of a sampling instrument to enhance the resolution of eDNA-based diversity assessment, and does not sufficiently focus on developing the associated scientific potential. For instance, other target biological groups than phytoplankton are not sufficiently considered, nor are hypotheses regarding geographical patterns of variability in biodiversity, seasonal trends or links with environmental parameters. The soundness of methodology regarding eDNA analyses cannot be sufficiently assessed as relevant details are insufficiently provided. The proposed staff exchanges and training workshops are adequate to increase the research profile of the coordinator and its research management capabilities. Open science practices are adequately integrated. --------- The plan for training, mobility, and dedicated workshops and summer schools is comprehensive and aligned with related objective. This ensures a robust and effective networking. The Work Packages are in full alignment with the project’s objectives—not only scientific but also managerial and educational— encompassing the full scope of scientific, technological, capacity-building, networking, and management activities of the project. The contribution and capacity of each of the partners are very well-described, with clear implementation in technological development as well as in training and outreach. Open science is adequately embedded in relevant work packages. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340146/DNAauto-20/07/2026-14:51:15 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The proposal presents a credible pathway from knowledge transfer and technical development to improved institutional capacity and stronger international positioning of the Widening beneficiary. The expected results are relevant and of suitable scale. However, the economic and societal impacts, including large-scale uptake and broader European deployment, are ambitious and overly depend on post-project adoption by external users and infrastructure operators. The indicators are broadly adequate to monitor outputs such as publications, training, mobility, datasets, protocols, proposals and dissemination. However, several measure activity completion rather than the durability of effects, including operational use, agency uptake, service income and lasting research management capacity. --------- The pathways to impact are good and generally credible. The proposal links results to Twinning Work Programme outcomes: improved capacity at widening coordinator, collaboration, visibility, management strengthening, mobility and R&I collaboration. The prototype, protocols, data outputs, training and joint proposals are relevant and appropriate in scale. However, some impact claims are insufficiently substantiated. Expected growth in service revenue, route uptake and institutional attractiveness are asserted, but the causal chain from outputs to uptake and sustained capacity gains is not sufficiently evidenced. Indicators are unevenly provided: publications, training and proposals are measurable, while recognition, investment, IP-related outcomes and long-term capacity gains are unclearly defined. --------- The project results have sufficient scale to achieve the expected outcomes, but the high ambition of some of the expected impacts limits their credibility given the project's size and duration. The proposal includes adequate indicators to assess the impact on certain aspects (publications, secured research contracts) but in other dimensions of impact (e.g. training of young researchers, talent attraction, incorporation of international staff), indicators are not sufficiently elaborated. Baseline values of indicators (required to assess impact) are not fully substantiated. --------- Impact are well addressed through a highly detailed section, including tables that outline dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures tailored to each specific need and achievement for every individual outcome. The project impacts are clearly articulated across multiple dimensions (economic, social, scientific), providing a detailed and credible roadmap for success. The proposed indicators, either quantitative and qualitative, are adequate to address all expected impacts. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are broadly suitable. .However, the route from prototype validation to routine service provision and wider deployment is described without sufficient detail. External barriers are clearly identified and mitigation is generally appropriate. However, several key barriers depend on external actors, including ferry operators, monitoring agencies, repositories and national authorities, which limits the certainty of achieving the uptake. Intellectual property is addressed to some extent, but ownership, access rights, prototype protection, licensing and commercial use are not sufficiently detailed. --------- The dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are good and suitable. They target scientific, policy, industry, training and public audiences. They have potential beyond the project through reusable workflows and monitoring uptake. External barriers are analyzed, including technical integration, field disruptions, supply chains and stakeholder availability. Mitigation is mostly appropriate. However, the exploitation plan is not sufficiently concrete, such as target users, adoption steps, post-project responsibilities and uptake timing are not clearly specified. IP management is insufficiently addressed despite prototype commercial potential and ownership/access rights are unclear. --------- The envisaged dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are suitable. The proposal clearly analyses potential barriers to its impact and provides suitable mitigation measures. Intellectual property is only mentioned in the proposal very succinctly. There is not sufficient indication of the different types of data that will be originated in terms of their intellectual property status, nor how they will be treated accordingly. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication strategy is thoroughly detailed and convincing, providing specific impact metrics across technological, economic, and managerial domains, while clearly outlining the benefits for stakeholders. A minor shortcoming is the insufficiently elaborated information on selected stakeholders. Barriers and obstacles have been clearly identified, and a detailed, highly convincing risk management plan has been provided. A dedicated deliverable dealing with IP and measures is adequately addressed in its outline. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340146/DNAauto-20/07/2026-14:51:15 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is generally well structured, with interrelated work packages covering research, research management, training, dissemination and project management. Links between prototype development, testing, training and dissemination are sufficiently elaborated. However, the coordinator’s share of the budget is appears underestimated, notably for capacity-building activities, and this is not sufficiently justified. Furthermore, the main training and networking work package starts after the research component formally ends. This does not clearly ensure integration of training with development and validation. Research component spans multiple WPs; budget caps not clearly shown. Implementation risks are sufficiently identified and mitigation is generally adequate. Some measures depend on third parties and external conditions, e.g. ferry operators, monitoring agencies and national authorities, and this is not sufficiently accounted for. --------- The work plan is good and generally coherent. The WPs are interlinked, with a logical flow from prototype development to training, validation, dissemination and management. Deliverables and milestones are mostly concrete, and the overall budget and person-month distribution are broadly consistent with the scope. However, the timing is not fully consistent, as some training/networking outputs are scheduled outside the stated duration of the related WP, and full operational validation is linked to a WP after the research WP will have ended. Research component spans multiple WPs; budget caps not clearly shown. Risks are clearly listed with likelihood, severity and generally adequate mitigation measures. --------- The work plan is well-structured but the definition and timing of tasks within different WPs hinders its effectiveness. However, one of the leading institutions participates with a high junior to senior ratio (in terms of person-months), which unconvincingly ensures presence of experienced staff. Several tasks in the first WP encompass a broad range of technically demanding activities, including development and deployment of prototype sampler, eDNA processing and analysis workflows, comparative assessment against alternative methodologies, and investigation of seasonal variability. The scheduling of these activities raises some concerns regarding the overall coherence and sequencing of the work plan in relation to the timing of training activities in the respective WP. The latter includes the analysis of eDNA from a number of sampling events, but the associated costs are not sufficiently included in the budget. Research component spans multiple WPs; budget caps not clearly shown. Risks are clearly described and mitigation measures are adequate. --------- The work plan is very well structured, providing a detailed and clear breakdown of resource allocation, including the timeline and budget for personnel, research activities, training, and dissemination. Research component spans multiple WPs; budget caps not clearly shown. A detailed risk contingency plan is provided, including those related to implementation. Also, the proposed mitigation measures with specific measures are adequate. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes internationally recognised institutions with complementary expertise relevant to the scientific & capacity-building objectives. The leading institutions will provide appropriate support through technical expertise, operational monitoring experience, bioinformatics, training, mentoring, sampling campaigns & research management support. Advanced partners cover key technical and methodological domains, while the coordinator is the main capacity-building beneficiary. However, the proposal is not sufficiently convincing on how technical ownership and operational independence will be effectively transferred to the coordinator. Expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the tasks. However, arrangements for prototype ownership, maintenance, validation thresholds and long-term operational support are not sufficiently specified. Engagement with operators and users is foreseen, but direct industrial involvement in core implementation is limited. --------- The consortium is very good and brings together the necessary expertise. The coordinator has relevant marine monitoring infrastructure and regional experience, while the leading partners credibly provide complementary excellence. Their support is appropriate for the objectives, covering technical development, field validation, bioinformatics, training, research-management mentoring and proposal development. However, some support mechanisms remain high-level and insufficiently justified. For instance, transfer of know-how to the coordinator is not always linked to precise responsibilities, capacity indicators or sufficient evidence of lasting institutional embedding. Roles are broadly well aligned with the tasks. The available infrastructure is suitable. However, exploitation-related external roles are only partly reflected in the consortium, despite the operational uptake potential of the prototype. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading institutions, with demonstrated expertise in marine observation and technology. The participant researchers possess a good track record of scientific contributions. The leading institutions provide the Widening beneficiary with the required support to implement the project. The partners' roles and responsibilities are appropriate to the objectives. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the tasks allocated. --------- Relevant internationally leading research institutions are included. The support provided by the leading institutions to the widening beneficiaries is mentioned in generic terms and without sufficient level of detail. A balanced distribution of work packages and responsibilities is presented, with partners' roles and responsibilities clearly aligned and appropriate in relation to the project's objectives. The consortium's expertise in the field and their infrastructures are well described and balanced in the proposed tasks. The proposal does not clearly mention collaborations with specific industrial partners, and provides limited detail to identify which industrial sectors are targeted by the project and its resulting technology. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101340146/DNAauto-20/07/2026-14:51:15 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340146/DNAauto-20/07/2026-14:51:15 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T14:51:23 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340054 Proposal acronym: DigiGOV Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Strengthening Digital Governance and Management of The Built Environment Lifecycle at TalTech Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 613,625 41.13% 613,625 41.13% 2 AALTO KORKEAKOULUSAATIO SR FI 371,513.75 24.90% 371,513.75 24.90% 3 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET MUENCHEN DE 380,000 25.47% 380,000 25.47% 4 Associação - Instituto para a Construção Sustentável (ICS) PT 126,625 8.49% 126,625 8.49% Total: 1,491,763.75 1,491,763.75 Abstract: The recent renewal of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) mandate the digital and sustainable transformation of the European built environment and construction industry. However, a primary barrier remains: the severe fragmentation of data flows across built environment lifecycle stages. While Estonia has a world-leading e-governance infrastructure, Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech), Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture faces critical methodological, technical, and structural excellence gaps that hinder its scientific potential. These include a limited capacity to research and educate the integration of Digital Planning Systems, Digital Building Logbooks (DBL), and Digital Product Passports (DPP) into unified workflows, alongside the absence of a sustainable "academic pyramid" for research excellence and management. To bridge these gaps, TWIN DigiGOV establishes a strategic knowledge-transfer with Aalto, TUM, and ICS through joint pilot research, collaborative upskilling sprints, strategic secondments, and thematic mentorship. The project will utilize Estonia’s national digital assets as a system-level testbed to develop research excellence in lifecycle governance methodologies, domain engineering, and construction informatics, facilitated by AI-soltiuons. This institutional transformation will culminate in the establishment of a permanent Digital Built Environment Governance Research Lab/Unit, the appointment of a new tenure-track professor for construction informatics and AI, a renewed "Digital Construction" MSc major, and developed and validated governance models and workflows ready for replication. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.25 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340054/DigiGOV-20/07/2026-14:13:16 1/7  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal appropriately aims to strengthen research excellence in digital governance and management of the built environment life cycle, linking each objective to visible institutional and scientific outputs, with progress monitored through concrete deliverables, while realistically acknowledging existing gaps and leveraging coordinator' national digital test-beds alongside the complementary expertise of its partners. The objectives are pertinent to the Work Programme: improving research excellence, strategic ties, reputation, management capacity, novel collaboration and mobility. --------- The proposal's objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable. Objectives are mapped to pillars with clear articulation of outputs, outcomes, and measurable KPIs. The proposal's objectives are pertinent to the Work Programme, by improving research excellence by a digital governance framework with computational governance logic, stronger strategic ties through joint PhD programmes, secondments and communities of practice, higher reputation by new MSc major package, and micro-credentials, strengthened research management through the the academic pyramid, and job-shadowing at partner institutions, novel R&I collaboration approaches through the peer learner validation model and collaborative mentorship framework, and increased mobility in and outwards through secondments. --------- The objectives are very well formulated, clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable. The objectives are fully pertinent to the call, respectively: the lifecycle-oriented digital governance contributes very well to the improvement of the research capacities of the coordinator; Joint supervision and staff exchange enable strong strategic ties between the partners and ensure an increase in researcher mobility; the renewal of the existing MSc, as well as professional micro-credentials/courses, provides a solid basis for increasing the institutional reputation and attractiveness; the planned job shadowing activities are well-suited to strengthen the research management capacities of the coordinator; and the outlined approach provides novel R&I collaboration approaches beyond disciplinary silos. --------- The overall objective of the proposal is clear as to strengthen the institutional scientific capacity and research excellence oft he coordinating institution in the digital governance and management of the built environment lifecycle. The proposal indicates specific objectives, which reflect the intention of the project. These objectives are underpinned by key measurable outputs. However, the analysis of the framework conditions of the current state of art insufficiently addresses structural fragmentation of public authorities across the built environment lifecycle. The objectives of the proposal are relevant in the context of the work programme. However, the proposal does not clearly address the objective of novel R&I collaboration approaches by the tasks and activities foreseen. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology 101340054/DigiGOV-20/07/2026-14:13:16 2/7  a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The methodology appropriately delivers its objectives through a coherent capacity-building chain structured around reinforcing pillars supported by coordinator' national digital ecosystem as a practical research & validation environment, while ensuring effective knowledge transfer through co-creation, secondments, thematic mentoring, joint supervision, educational innovation, and peer learning. The proposal includes a well-defined research component work package (WP). The robust research management WP will directly strengthen coordinator’s back-office capacity. Open Science practices are very good. FAIR principles, a Data Management Platform, open repositories, open standards and GDPR-compliant data handling are well integrated. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are generally sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. However, the extent of the pilot and the validation methodology are not sufficiently elaborated. Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach are appropriately planned. The research work package is sufficiently described with well identified challenges linking the EU/national level governance framework with the integration of digital workflow. The research management WP to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including the establishment of a dedicated team, is well structured, with skills gap mapping and application of the academic pyramid logic. Open Science practices are well integrated, including open-source repositories, pre- and post-prints, and the use of standard ontologies. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are very sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. The proposal clearly outlines thematic focus fields, e.g., with named and well-established researchers paired with early career researchers and PhD candidates for training and exchanges. The research component work package very well describes the innovative approach chosen toward data management in building design and construction, supply chain aspects, including the digital product passport. While the general structure research management is solid, the proposal lacks sufficient details on the concrete construction and persons involved regarding the external scientific advisory board. It is also unclear how input from the board is integrated into project execution. Open Science practices are very well integrated, including details for repositories, data/results licensing, and open access. A Data Management Plan with regular updates is in place. --------- Generally, the proposed activities and methodologies are clear and are in line with the intention of the objectives of the project. However, in terms of a lifecycle approach of the built environment the project activities miss to sufficiently address the operational phase of a building, which represents the longest period of the built environment. Moreover, the proposed research component inadequately reflects the integration of the practical needs from the perspective of key stakeholders such as public authorities and the construction industry. The description of Open Science activities is very generic as the respective part of the proposal mainly focuses on the explanation of data management. The development of novel approaches in R&I collaboration is poorly addressed. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340054/DigiGOV-20/07/2026-14:13:16 3/7  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The results are credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts. It links coordinator's institutional strengthening with scientific, educational and sectoral uptake through national test-beds, renewed MSc teaching and a permanent research unit and stronger grant-management capacity aligned with EU relevance. The proposed indicators are very good and adequately measure expected impacts. Provides a broad and relevant set of indicators and expected results with numerical details. Outputs, outcomes and Key Performance Indicators supports monitoring institutional change rather than only activity completion. --------- The project results are in general of sufficient scale and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme, and are credible. However, the scale of the pilot is not sufficiently elaborated. The proposed indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, are very well described to measure the expected impacts, including publications, policy briefs, governance framework, and training packages. --------- The project outlines its pathway toward impact well. The main groups (academia, the public sector, and the industry sector) are identified, and for each, the concrete scale and significance of the project's results are described credibly. However, the details of contributions to broader destination-level impacts remain limited. The proposed indicators concerning communication, dissemination, and exploitation are overall well-suited and well-quantified, e.g., the number of joint high- impact open-access publications or the number of micro-credential programs developed. However, while the proposal defines concrete KPIs for its project outcomes (which partially overlap with the dissemination KPIs), it does not sufficiently quantify them. --------- The proposal defines two levels of impacts: for the research and education community and for the public and private construction sector. Within these levels specific target groups are identified and specific impacts are noted. These noted impacts are relevant for the target audiences in order to facilitate the digital governance and management in the life cycle of the built environment. Generally, the proposal indicates some key performance indicators. However, not all impacts are clearly substantiated by respective activities of the project, e.g. high-level policy workshops and follow-up funding proposals submitted. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination plan is suitable, of good quality, and credible, combining a dedicated Work Package with peer-to-peer outreach, scientific outputs, policy materials, and educational actions, while delivering key results such as governance frameworks, interoperable workflows supported by appropriate measures that enhance EU visibility and promote practical uptake beyond the project through community-oriented engagement. The project clearly analyses barriers to impact, notably fragmented data flows, poor interoperability and siloed expertise, with suitable mitigation through pilot validation and structured transfer. IP management and protection are very good. It balances on open science and interoperability with exploitable digital assets. --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are well suited and impactful beyond the project's duration and scope, through engagement with policy bodies, development of a research lab, the MSc curriculum package, micro-credentials for external industry stakeholders, and spillover validation. The project does not sufficiently demonstrate the analysis of the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and the proposed mitigation measures are not adequate. For example, the proposal does not have a sufficiently developed risks and mitigation section specifically dedicated to impact. Intellectual property management and protection is adequate. --------- The proposed dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are well-suited to provide impact beyond the duration and scope of the project. The proposal discusses some barriers related to data fragmentation. However, it does not adequately map impact-related barriers -including those from a long-term perspective- to concrete mitigation measures, with an explicit link to the work plan. The aspect of intellectual property management and protection is adequately addressed, with pointers toward the consortium agreement for further specifics. --------- The proposal addresses some aspects of dissemination, exploitation and communication. However, the proposal insufficiently differentiates between objectives, target audiences and activities for communication and dissemination. Overall, the respective descriptions are very generic and miss clear linkages to the thematic elements of the proposal. The analysis of barriers remains on a very generic level, without highlighting the specific challenges for the digitalisation of processes of the built environment in the whole lifecycle in the national context of the coordinating institution. Intellectual property management and protection is adequately addressed for the type of project which a limited share component in research. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340054/DigiGOV-20/07/2026-14:13:16 4/7  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured, and logically timed. It follows a clear Twinning pathway from capacity building to institutional embedding. The allocation of the effort assigned to the Work Packages and the resources are appropriate and broadly justified through coordinated scientific, educational, management and dissemination tasks. The assessment of critical risks is appropriate and mitigation measures are adequate. Governance, quality assurance, peer review, Key Performance Indicators monitoring and a risk register are provided. --------- The work plan is generally effective, well-structured, and logically timed. The milestones and deliverables are well distributed, however, the scientific publications are bundled as one deliverable and do not provide a sufficiently detailed time frame. The work packages are coherently interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources in person-months, time, and budget in the Lump Sum table. The budget is consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in Part A of the proposal. The risks relative to implementation and the mitigation measures are partially described. For example, the proposal does not sufficiently address the dependence on a single consortium partner for validation as an implementation risk, and does not sufficiently mitigate it. --------- The work plan overall is effective, well-structured, and the work packages complement each other. Tables in part B and the budget table in part A are consistent. Clear handovers have mostly been defined. However, it is not clearly described how the state-of-the-art research is integrated into curriculum development. While the distribution of budget and partners is logical and aligned with the underlying activities, the proposal lacks a clear justification of why the PMs for anchoring and embedding research management capacity are relatively low in comparison to the research activities. The proposal outlines and defines risks very well for the implementation of the objectives. Each risk has been assessed regarding its likelihood and severity. For each identified risk, clear and realistic mitigation measures have been defined. --------- Overall, the work plan is clear and linked to the intentions of the proposal. However, inter linkages between tasks and work packages are not clearly presented which minders the quality of the work plan as several tasks are planned to be implemented in parallel. The descriptions of the tasks are very brief and insufficiently focus on the explanation of how noted activities shall be implemented. Planning of deliverables and milestones is reasonable. However, it is not well justified why for the first milestones of some work packages rather late dates are set. The calculation of person months is reasonable. The descriptions of purchase costs is insufficiently covered (e.g. some cost items in the category 'Other goods, works and services' are relatively high and consist of multiple sub-items), without specifying the costs for these individual positions. There is consistency across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal. Risks regarding the collaboration of the participating institutions are insufficiently addressed. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise 101340054/DigiGOV-20/07/2026-14:13:16 5/7  a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions and/or higher education establishments, alongside include another private, scientific and technical non-profit association. The leading institutions provide to the widening beneficiary the necessary support to successfully implement the project. The role of each of the participants is credibly demonstrated. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. Industrial/commercial involvement is adequately considered for exploitation of results through stakeholder validation, micro-degrees and sector-facing outputs. --------- The consortium includes at least two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The leading institutions provide the widening beneficiary with the necessary support to successfully implement the project. Partners' roles and responsibilities are generally appropriate in relation to the project's objectives. However, the spillover validation is conducted independently by a consortium partner and the mechanisms of collaboration and coordination are not sufficiently elaborated. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. Industrial and commercial involvement is adequate for the exploitation of results, through dedicated professional micro-credentials specifically targeted at industry stakeholders. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading universities, one of which is a civil engineering-focused research institution. All leading institutions provide a strong background in construction, engineering, and circular material flows, hence provide the necessary support to successfully implement the project. The roles and responsibilities of all involved partners are very well aligned with the project objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. Industrial exploitation of the results is strongly anchored in the proposal's capacity-building activities, i.e., through the digital built environment incubation program. --------- The consortium includes at least two leading research institutions. These partners clearly provide support to the coordinating institution. The partner roles are clearly described and relevant to achieve the objectives as defined by the proposal. Allocated tasks are clearly defined for each partner and correspond to the expertise of the partner institutions. Involvement of key stakeholders is inadequately addressed for the exploitation of results as the proposal does not clearly present a tailored plan to roll-out the key results of the project. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided 101340054/DigiGOV-20/07/2026-14:13:16 6/7  Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340054/DigiGOV-20/07/2026-14:13:16 7/7  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T14:13:23 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101339521 Proposal acronym: GeoEcon Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Economic Complexity for European Economic Security and Resilience Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 599,500 46.75% 599,500 46.75% 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER UK 306,329.69 23.89% 306,329.69 23.89% 3 UNIVERSITA COMMERCIALE LUIGI BOCCONI IT 258,187.5 20.14% 258,187.5 20.14% 4 Trade Promotion Europe AISBL BE 118,250 9.22% 118,250 9.22% Total: 1,282,267.19 1,282,267.19 Abstract: Economic resilience and geoeconomics are central to Europe’s ability to respond to shocks, strengthen strategic autonomy, and sustain competitiveness. However, current research remains fragmented, lacks integrated analytical frameworks and datasets, and insufficiently translates insights into policy-ready tools. The project aims to position TalTech as a recognised European centre of excellence in economic resilience and geoeconomics through a long-term, strategically governed collaboration with leading institutions. This will be achieved through measurable outcomes, including increased participation and coordination in Horizon Europe, high-impact joint publications, and structured contributions to EU policy processes. The project strengthens TalTech’s scientific leadership by enabling it to co-create advanced research, shape emerging agendas, and deliver policy-relevant outputs. The project will co-develop advanced analytical frameworks integrating economic complexity, global value chains, and geoeconomic dynamics, going beyond the state of the art. It will also develop demonstrators that translate analytical results into user-oriented tools, strengthening TalTech’s capacity at the science–policy–industry interface. Structured mobility, including secondments, joint workshops, and training, will support knowledge exchange, skills development, and long-term collaboration. In parallel, the project will modernise TalTech research management through the co-development of advanced training models and improved institutional processes. The partnership brings together complementary scientific expertise, research management capabilities, and policy engagement capacity. The University of Manchester contributes expertise in economic complexity and policy analysis, Bocconi University provides strengths in global value chain analysis, industrial dynamics, and geopolitical risk, and Trade Promotion Europe ensures validation and uptake in practical export promotion contexts. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339521/GeoEcon-20/07/2026-22:28:56 1/7  1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal’s objectives are clearly addressed and highly ambitious, measurable, and achievable, as evidenced by the detailed description of specific objectives and verifiable key performance indicators. The proposal objectives are pertinent to those of the Work Programme, in particular, towards strengthening the scientific excellence and research management capacity of the Widening institution. The Widening beneficiary will primarily benefit from challenging and innovative analytical frameworks integrating economic complexity, global value chain analysis, and geoeconomics using data science and AI. Research collaborations and stronger ties with high-quality leading institutions will further enhance the international visibility of the coordinator. --------- Both the scientific and research management objectives of the project are clearly set out. Each has been assigned a set of quantitatively defined KPIs to render the objectives verifiable. They are realistically achievable by the project. The objectives are pertinent, spanning scientific and research management fields. Among others, they cover enhancing the research skills of the beneficiary, establishing longer-term ties with the leading institutions, and making the beneficiary attractive to existing and new staff, while promoting temporary staff mobility. The research topic is highly relevant to the current EU policy focus. The research management goals are ambitious and relevant. --------- The proposal's objectives are coherent and well-structured, generally measurable, and linked to quantitative KPIs. The alignment between upgrading scientific excellence and institutional capacity building is good. However, the operationalisation of policy frameworks and demonstrators is not defined with sufficient precision. The proposal is well aligned with the Twinning objectives, particularly in terms of excellence upgrading, collaboration, mobility, and research management modernisation. The cooperation with internationally recognised partners supports ERA integration and research visibility. However, the contribution to long-term institutional transformation is presented more strategically than operationally. --------- The objectives are clear, specific, relevant, time-bound, measurable, and verifiable. They are ambitious yet achievable. Each objective is associated with quantitative KPIs with explicit targets. The inclusion of a detailed SWOT analysis grounds the objectives in a realistic assessment of the Widening institution’s starting position. The proposal directly and comprehensively addresses key work programme objectives such as improved research capacities, stronger strategic ties, higher institutional reputation, strengthened research management capacities, and novel R&I collaboration approaches. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology 101339521/GeoEcon-20/07/2026-22:28:56 2/7  a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed coordination and support activities are sound and very well aligned with the proposal’s objectives to achieve the planned upgrading of the Widening institution. The knowledge transfer is well designed through staff exchanges/expert visits, workshops, etc. Proposed activities for training and mobility are fully detailed and concrete. An excellent description is provided of how the proposal will bridge the gap between the Widening institution and its advanced partners. The research methodology, integrating various cutting-edge disciplines, is comprehensively and explicitly elaborated with specified testable hypotheses and methodological techniques. The research management and administrative tasks are properly articulated to upgrade the coordinator's management and research capacities. Open science practices are adequately addressed in line with the FAIR principles and measures to support reproducibility. --------- The thorough SWOT analysis as the starting point is methodologically convincing, and then appropriate methods are derived from it. The proposal sets out the proposed exchange and training measures clearly, and these are appropriate. The key identified methodological challenge is to be overcome through intense interdisciplinary work. The research component seeks to break new ground, extending the existing approach with new techniques. The research management tasks are varied and will combine to provide a substantial upgrade of the research management capacities of the beneficiary. In this context, the gender dimension is well embedded, and the goal of raising the profile of women in leadership roles is very relevant. The consortium shows good awareness of open science principles and has implemented these throughout the proposal. --------- The project includes a comprehensive set of Twinning-relevant activities, such as secondments, workshops, co-creation actions, demonstrators, and research management training. The methodology is coherent and scientifically relevant. However, the proposal does not clearly explain the technical integration of the modelling layers, the validation of AI-based demonstrators, or the management related to data heterogeneity and model interpretability. Open Science principles are adequately addressed through commitments to open datasets, dissemination activities, stakeholder engagement, or reproducible demonstrators. The proposal demonstrates the awareness of transparency and explainability issues related to AI-based methods. However, the Data Management and long-term FAIR implementation strategy remain relatively generally explained. --------- The methodology is sound and innovative. The exchange and mobility activities are suitable. The integration of economic complexity, geopolitical signals, and machine learning advances the state of the art. The learning-by-co-creation approach and structured learning loops are well-designed. The SWOT analysis appropriately informs the methodology. The research management improvement is convincingly described. The gender dimension is appropriately addressed. Open Science practices are very well integrated. The proposal commits to early and open sharing, Green/Gold Open Access for peer-reviewed publications, FAIR- compliant data management, Creative Commons Attribution for datasets and tools, and deposition in major institutional repositories. A Data Management Plan is planned as a deliverable, which is a good practice. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101339521/GeoEcon-20/07/2026-22:28:56 3/7  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The pathways to achieve expected outcomes are clearly documented and sufficiently credible. Notably, the proposal very well analyzes how the Widening coordinator will achieve advancements in the scientific and research management capacity to compete internationally and further strengthen its reputation within the European Research Area. The expected impacts on scientific excellence, innovation capacity, and collaborations, including a strategic non-academic partner to create alliances with policy- practices, are well detailed. However, even though the wider scientific, economic, and societal impacts are described, the scale and magnitude of their significance are insufficiently elaborated. --------- The proposal credibly claims to generate substantial results in terms of developing the research skills and the research management capacity of the beneficiary and pushing the knowledge frontier in the beneficiary country. Using trade promotion organisations will ensure that the impacts will not remain only academic. The foreseen impacts are substantial; thus, the impacts foreseen in the Work Programme can confidently be expected to materialize. Even though in this section, only a limited number of specific indicators to measure impact is proposed, in the proposal, there are detailed KPIs specified that can serve to adequately measure the expected impacts in both scientific and policy terms. --------- The pathways to impact are generally credible and well-connected to the activities. The consortium is appropriate for scientific upgrading and policy engagement, with a strong understanding of EU debates on resilience and geoeconomics. However, several expected impacts rely on assumptions about stakeholder uptake and policy demand, but the mechanisms for broader adoption of the demonstrators are insufficiently developed. KPIs related to publications, mobility, training, and stakeholder engagement are measurable and aligned with the planned activities, but they mainly capture outputs rather than long-term scientific or institutional impact. Indicators on policy influence and sustainability are not fully outcome-oriented and sufficiently operationalised. --------- The project results are credible, of sufficient scale and importance. The proposal articulates clear, logical, and credible pathways from results to major impacts (e. g., durable ERA integration, transformation of research management, and enhancement of EU economic security policymaking), well-aligned with the work programme’s expected outcomes. The proposal provides an exceptionally detailed and well-structured set of KPIs. Quantitative indicators cover scientific outputs, mobility, research management, and policy engagement. Even though it is not sufficiently explained how qualitative impacts will be explicitly measured, the proposal provides adequate related proxy indicators. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- A well-framed dissemination plan is provided that ensures a sustained interaction with researchers, policymakers, and industry, such as a large number of scientific papers in high-impact journals, workshops, doctoral mentoring, policy workshops, and briefs to policymakers and others. Communication activities targeting the general public and social media, as well as proper exploitation actions, are adequately considered. Plans for the continuation of joint research collaborations beyond the project duration are clearly demonstrated to ensure sustainability. The proposal clearly describes barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, along with proper mitigation measures. Intellectual property management and protection are very well addressed. --------- The proposal sets out a sophisticated and clear dissemination, exploitation, and communication plan. A range of measures is tailored to specific contexts and stakeholders. The sustainability of impact is well addressed within the dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures. This is also credible thanks to the links that will be established with trade promotion organisations. The proposal contains a clear exposition of a number of external structural barriers to the project and discusses appropriate mitigation measures in an intelligent and suitable way. The proposal has a thoughtful plan for sharing any intellectual property emerging from the joint work and combining innovation protection with maximising access and dissemination. --------- The dissemination and communication strategy is broad and targets academic, policy, and practitioner audiences. There is good awareness of the need to connect research and policy communities. Exploitation aspects are discussed, particularly regarding long-term maintenance and scaling-up. The proposal identifies relevant external barriers, including geopolitical uncertainty and limited policy uptake. However, the mitigation measures are often generic and insufficiently operational, especially concerning interdisciplinary coordination and sustained stakeholder engagement. The proposal appropriately addresses openness and accessibility and does not raise major IP concerns. --------- The comprehensive dissemination, exploitation, and communication plan is satisfactory. The exploitation of key exploitable results is clearly mapped, including integration into teaching, follow-up proposals, and uptake by trade promotion organisations. However, the exploitation plan for demonstrators beyond the project duration is not fully detailed. Main external barriers are well-identified, and the related mitigation measures are appropriate. The commitment to the DESCA framework for IPR management is appropriate, with a good balance between open science and protection of exploitable results. The related ownership and licensing are also satisfactorily specified. 101339521/GeoEcon-20/07/2026-22:28:56 4/7  Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is clearly designed and effective, with logically timed and well-structured work packages, supported by a comprehensive Gantt chart with sufficiently detailed deliverables and milestones. The work packages show a considerable degree of interrelationship among them. Suitable measures to monitor the project's progress towards the implementation tasks are also included. The effort assigned per work package and budget allocation are well-balanced and reasonable from a cost perspective. A number of reasonable risks are identified relative to the project's implementation and related mitigation measures are suitably considered. --------- The work plan is well developed, work packages essentially proceed in parallel throughout the project duration, which is appropriate for the nature of the project. The tasks are clearly and suitably specified. There is consistency across the person month and budgetary tables in Parts B and A and the lump sum table. The distribution of effort across work packages and organisations is plausible and coherent. The rationale behind the budget allocation is well explained. An extensive list of possible risks is presented in detail, their likely incidence is assessed and plausible mitigation measures are presented. --------- The work plan is coherent, logically structured, and aligned with the objectives. Activities are appropriately sequenced, and the distribution of effort is broadly reasonable. The integration between scientific, policy, and research management activities is one of the strengths of the proposal. Relevant implementation risks are identified, including interdisciplinary coordination challenges, staff mobility constraints, and policy uncertainty. However, mitigation measures are mostly generic and procedural. The more concrete contingency planning, clearer prioritisation mechanisms, and stronger discussion of technological and data-related implementation risks are not provided. --------- The work plan is effective and logically structured with clear dependencies between WPs and balanced timing. The distribution of effort across WPs reflects the project’s priorities. However, the proposal does not sufficiently justify the specified person month allocations, esp. regarding the knowledge exchange and mobility. There is consistency in resource allocation across tables in A and B part of the proposal. Critical scientific, operational, and institutional implementation risks are well-identified with likelihood/severity scoring and mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are generally appropriate. However, probability/impact scoring is not always sufficiently justified, and the mitigation for low participation in RM training is not sufficiently specific, e.g., regarding the kind of incentives that will be used. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise 101339521/GeoEcon-20/07/2026-22:28:56 5/7  a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The proposal includes internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The leading institutions are high class in the research area of the project and show significant complementarities and synergies. The contribution of the leading institutions to the Widening beneficiary is highly valuable. They will provide the necessary support to successfully implement the project. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are very well aligned with the allocated tasks. The added value of industrial/commercial involvement is not fully clear. --------- The project involves two leading academic institutions of high scientific reputation and an institutional body focused on impact maximisation via trade promotion organisations. Effective support is provided by the leading institutions in terms of research excellence, knowledge transfer and research-management capacity. The division of tasks and responsibilities between the beneficiary institution and the leading institutions is appropriate for achieving the project's objectives. Tasks are divided in accordance with the consortium members' specialised expertise. In terms of infrastructure a key asset is the provision of advanced high- performance computing infrastructure, with access shared among participants. Commercial involvement is not a major feature of the project. However, the integration of trade promotion organisations is a strength of the proposal. --------- The consortium includes internationally recognised organisations with strong scientific expertise and policy relevance in the field. The proposal demonstrates a convincing commitment to structured knowledge transfer from leading institutions through secondments, mentoring, training, and collaborative activities. The support mechanisms are generally appropriate. Roles and responsibilities are well distributed and coherent with the project’s objectives. The complementarity of partners in methodological, policy, and stakeholder- oriented competences is well documented. The consortium has strong expertise aligned with the allocated tasks as well as appropriate infrastructure and capabilities. The proposal includes stakeholder and practitioner engagement mechanisms that support policy relevance and validation activities. However, broader commercialisation or industrial exploitation pathways are limited and indirect. --------- The consortium includes two academic partners that are internationally leading research institutions. The foreseen support of leading institutions is extensive and generally sufficient. However, the dedicated mentorship time to be provided by leading partners to Twinning researchers is not comprehensively quantified. Roles and responsibilities are very well aligned with the project’s objectives. Each partner’s expertise and infrastructure are well matched to the allocated tasks. The non-academic partner will channel the exploitation of demonstrators, with the potential uptake by SMEs facilitated via an established external ecosystem. However, the proposal does not sufficiently explain the insufficient direct commercial involvement, which weakens the potential for private-sector validation of the demonstrators. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101339521/GeoEcon-20/07/2026-22:28:56 6/7  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed, and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal, and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101339521/GeoEcon-20/07/2026-22:28:56 7/7  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T22:29:04 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340993 Proposal acronym: AGES Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Aging Consumers in Digital E‑Societies Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 626,439.38 43.95% 626,439.38 43.95% 2 KATHOLISCHE UNIVERSITAT EICHSTATT-INGOLSTADT DE 273,897.5 19.22% 273,897.5 19.22% 3 ATHINA-EREVNITIKO KENTRO KAINOTOMIAS STIS EL 252,187.5 17.70% 252,187.5 17.70% TECHNOLOGIES TIS PLIROFORIAS, TON EPIKOINONION KAI TIS GNOSIS 4 FRAUNHOFER GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER DE 272,660 19.13% 272,660 19.13% ANGEWANDTEN FORSCHUNG EV Total: 1,425,184.38 1,425,184.38 Abstract: Estonia is the only country in the world where essential public services - healthcare, taxation, benefits, civic registration - operate exclusively through digital channels. Older adults there are not choosing whether to engage with AI-enabled services. They are structurally required to. Yet existing consumer research frameworks were built for voluntary adoption contexts and offer no empirical purchase on populations who cannot opt out. This is the scientific gap AGES is designed to fill, and Estonia is where the rest of Europe is heading. AGES is a Horizon Europe Twinning project led by TalTech (Estonia) in partnership with ATHENA Research Centre (Greece), KU Eichstätt- Ingolstadt (Germany), and Fraunhofer IAO (Germany). It pursues two mutually reinforcing tracks: advancing rigorous empirical research on ageing consumers' interaction with digital and AI-enabled services, and building TalTech's institutional capacity to sustain and scale that research within the European Research Area. The scientific program spans three phases across 36 months, producing a systematic literature review, a validated conceptual framework, and three empirical studies: a cross-national survey across partner countries, an HCI experiment on embodied AI and cognitive load, and a causal inference study on trust and perceived fairness. The capacity-building program transfers advanced methodological expertise, research management and ethics governance competences, and AI-readiness capabilities to TalTech through expert visits, researcher exchanges, two joint summer schools, and structured RMA training. Findings are directly transferable to other vulnerable groups, including migrants, people with disabilities, and economically precarious households, and to EU member states at earlier stages of digital transition. AGES generates the evidence base for inclusive, age-sensitive digital transformation before the exclusion mechanisms visible in Estonia today become a pan-European policy emergency. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340993/AGES-20/07/2026-22:30:57 1/6  1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) The specific objectives of the proposal are achievable and verifiable. The project provides a clear pathway and links between the objectives, implementation and impact. The objectives are in line with those of the Work Programme. The research component is innovative and timely considering the current demographic trends and rapid technology development. The lead beneficiary, with the support of the rest of the beneficiaries in the project, will develop skills, knowledge, resources and internal governance to strengthen their scientific excellence in order to become a leading entity in the field. --------- The project’s objectives are clearly articulated and thematically coherent, demonstrating strong relevance to the emerging research field of aging and digitalization. The objectives are generally aligned with the Programme with the ambition to develop skills, knowledge, resources, and governance. However, the objectives emphasize scientific output over capacity building, leaving unclear which beneficiary capabilities are to be strengthened and how the objectives address these gaps. Throughout the abstract, introduction, and objectives, AGES focus on advancing scientific knowledge, most notably by aiming to produce “the first empirical evidence based on aging consumers,” rather than by explicitly identifying capability gaps at TalTech that the project seeks to address. --------- The description of the project objectives is excellent and the relationship between objectives, correspondence with WPs and connected impacts is presented in a very clear way. This allows measuring and verifying the achievability of the objectives. The objectives of the project are fully pertinent with those of the Work Programme and they are very well explained in the proposal and specifically, in the WPs descriptions. --------- The proposal clearly defines objectives that are measurable, verifiable, and feasible within the project timeframe. The proposal’s objectives are very well aligned with the Work Programme, particularly in strengthening the coordinator’s research management capacity, promoting research exchanges, and advancing training in artificial intelligence. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? The presented three-phase methodology is convincing to achieve the main research component which is innovative. However, the proposal provides limited details about the research carried out within the countries of the beneficiaries, the dimension of the quantitative and qualitative analysis and there is limited information of how data will be collected or the expected data volume in each of the country. Estonia is in unique position to test how aging population interact with digital and/or AI-enabled services. The SWOT analysis presents the beneficiaries’ understanding of the current situation and how the results of their work in the project could have positive results. This is positive. The project identifies the target groups for the project’s results. The project describes the management structure, team and how beneficiaries contribute to the project’s implementation. Gender aspects are mentioned mainly with respect to partners' practice, but not sufficiently in relation with the actions in the project. The consortium puts Open Science at the core of its activities; the partners’ expertise in understanding, using and providing results based on Open Science principles and practices is good. --------- The combination of activities: exchanges, visits, workshops, and summer schools is well aligned with the aim of strengthening research and institutional capacities. Activities are clearly structured across work packages and are designed to facilitate both methodological upskilling and organisational learning. The consortium demonstrates a well-developed approach to research management capacity building, but with some limitations in terms of depth and focus. The link between individual-level learning (e.g. participation in workshops) and sustained organisational change is not clear. While the motivation section highlights gaps in research and design methods in scientific fields, the SWOT weaknesses primarily concern internal organizational challenges at the beneficiary. Open science is described as both a methodological necessity for rigor and transferability and a capacity-building lever for long-term institutional reform --------- The proposed activities organization and methodology are excellent and fully appropriate to deliver the intended objectives. A clear SWOT analysis is presented, and risk and mitigation measures have been very clearly described in the proposal. Staff exchange, expert visits, summer schools are specifically included in a specific WP, research activities are concentrated in a single WP and Research Management capacity building is focused in a specific WP. The proposed research focuses on older consumers. While the proposal considers biological sex and sociocultural gender of relevance to the subject matter, is not fully described. Open science practices are fully integrated in the project approach. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate for achieving the stated objectives. The research work package is well defined and methodologically robust. The applicants plan to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods, which is appropriate for the aims of the study, and the proposal clearly describes the methodological framework for both the research component and capacity-building activities. However, the proposal does not sufficiently consider the gender dimension, which is particularly relevant in ageing populations. This represents a shortcoming. The proposal adequately addresses open science practices, research data management, and adherence to FAIR principles. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340993/AGES-20/07/2026-22:30:57 2/6  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? The project identifies outcomes which are credible in achieving the Work Programme objectives. EU27 will benefit from the results of the research; these results could lead to changes in social, digital and economic policies in the future. The KPIs for the identified outcomes and their expected values are credible and sufficient. However, outcome five is linked with the efficient management of the project, rather than with how the project will achieve it; this is a minor shortcoming. The project presents an extensive list of quantitative and qualitative indicators to measure expected impacts. They are also linked with the project's objective and their respective target groups. However, some of the indicators are linked with project management, which are not related to impact. --------- The results include strategic collaboration. However, pathways to broader institutional impact remain generic, and key outcomes such as strengthened RMA capacity and AI readiness are stated without clear operationalisation, reducing confidence in programme-level impact. The proposal provides a detailed and well-developed set of quantitative and qualitative performance indicators. They are adequate and well-structured for monitoring implementation and immediate outputs, but they are less well developed for capturing broader, longer-term impacts, particularly regarding institutional transformation and scientific recognition. However, it is not fully clear how indicators translate into verifiable institutional change. --------- The project’s results are undoubtedly credible, and their scope and significance are described in an excellent and convincing manner, to the extent that they are sufficient to achieve the expected Work Programme outcomes. The indicators of the expected impacts have been defined in an excellent way in a dedicated table and are certainly suitable for measuring them from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. --------- The project results are credible, clearly described, and sufficiently significant to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme, for instance by creating a conceptual framework to improve research capacity and enhance strategic collaboration across Europe. The proposal includes concrete, credible and achievable quantitative indicators, structured by specific tasks linked to specified deliverables in the Work Programme, which are appropriate for measuring the expected impacts. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? The proposed communication and dissemination actions are credible. However, dissemination actions specifically targeted at the elderly population are missing. The exploitation strategy focuses primarily to how the main beneficiary, and the partners will apply for future research opportunities – this is a shortcoming. The project presents a list of barriers and mitigation actions for the impact; However, a shortcoming is that the list refers only to research barriers and not to those related to exchange or capacity building. The IP management is limited in information and is only partially linked with the exploitation activities. The project does not fully provide relevant information of how the data collected through the survey will be used, or if it is collected respecting GDPR, ethics etc. --------- The plan is structured and aligned with the project's objectives. Likely to be impactful for academic visibility, policy engagement, and institutional learning, particularly for the beneficiary and its immediate networks. The listed KPIs are detailed and measurable. However, pathways from communication activities to broader uptake remain implicit, and communication beyond expert, policy, and research audiences is a minor shortcoming. Barriers are identified and mitigation measures are described, and the project tasks identified/listed. The proposal prioritises open access dissemination over IP protection. IP exploitation pathways are limited. Sufficient for compliance and risk control, but the strategic and impact-oriented dimension is underdeveloped. --------- Dissemination, exploitation and communication strategy to maximize project impact is very well described and a specific WP is dedicated to those activities. The barriers that may arise from external factors have been identified in a very clear way, analysed identifying their potential negative impact and defining the relevant appropriate mitigation measures. Given the expected outcomes of the project, the IP exploitation is limited. --------- The proposal describes well dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project's duration and scope. For instance, the proposal identifies specific journals and conferences for scientific dissemination, defines concrete metrics for communication strategies. It also clearly identifies the target groups that will benefit from the project’s outcomes. Potential external barriers to impact are sufficiently considered, and the proposal appropriately identifies its expected impacts alongside relevant mitigation measures. Although the proposal does not foresee protection of results through patents or software protection, this appears appropriate given the nature of the expected outcomes. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340993/AGES-20/07/2026-22:30:57 3/6  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? The workplan is well-structured, designed to achieve the established objectives. The timing of the actions is logical except for the literature review. Tasks are budgeted and explanations of the costs provided. The resources are balanced across the workpackages. The partners’ involvement in tasks is specified, but the description is not fully clear about who leads the task. The project has an extensive list of deliverables and milestones. A deliverable in the management workpackage is of administrative nature and does not clearly contribute to the project impact. The project identifies critical risks and their respective contingency. However, it is not fully clear how the oversampling budget will mitigate the identified risk of low participant recruitment. This is a shortcoming. --------- The plan is well-structured and the tasks interrelated, but the core of the focus is on research, literature review and dissemination of joint papers without strengthening the capacities and processes first. It is a minor concern that a different order would be expected, focusing on the coordination and management, followed by a capacity diagnosis and identification of needs for process strengthening to ensure institutional impact. Then a WP focusing on the scientific and skills training, where capacity and excellence would be built together, followed by joint scientific outputs and exploitation. As the WP order is reversed, starting with review and papers, it is not fully clear how the project will support systems. The risks are identified, including their likelihood and potential impact on the project. For each risk identified, the proposal lists suitable mitigation measures. It is a shortcoming that the risks are operationally focused and institutional risks are insufficiently described. --------- The work plan is structured in excellent way, WPs schedule is correct and the interrelation of the WPs is very clear. The allocation of resources is appropriate. Risks for implementation are described in excellent way together with adequate mitigation measures. --------- The work plan is effective and well structured. Tasks are logically scheduled, and the work packages are appropriately interrelated. The proposal clearly describes the tasks and their expected outcomes. The distribution of resources, in terms of both time and person-months and is appropriate to achieve the expected results. The proposal includes an excellent set of well-distributed milestones, facilitating progress monitoring throughout the project. The proposal clearly identifies implementation risks and includes adequate and well-defined mitigation measures. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise 101340993/AGES-20/07/2026-22:30:57 4/6  a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? The consortium is balanced, including internationally leading research organisations, respecting the composition and rules of the Work Programme. The partners’ role in the project matches their level of expertise; the leading research institutions providing support to the Widening lead partner. All partners are appropriate for the roles in the project. Although the partners involvement in tasks is specified in the task description it is unclear who leads the tasks. The resources allocated are balanced, although the effort of a partner in terms of allocated PMs is relatively low compared with the activities that they will carry out. Beneficiaries’ budgets include major resources allocated to a survey, however the proposal does not fully provide information about how the budget will be used, which is a shortcoming. Industrial or commercial involvement does not appear to play a significant role in the project, which is consistent with the nature and objectives of the proposed activities. --------- The partners represent higher-performing R&I ecosystems, providing frontier methods, governance models, and research infrastructure. While the beneficiary has strong contextual access (digital society, stakeholder networks), it shows structural and capability gaps compared to the advanced partners. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project’s research and capacity-building focus. However, one of the beneficiary's team appears to have not fully relevant experience, which is a minor shortcoming. The task allocation is generally well aligned with the consortium’s expertise. However, limited senior representation and insufficient detail on the beneficiary’s research staff (numbers and disciplines) constitute shortcomings. Industrial or commercial involvement does not appear to play a significant role in the project, which is consistent with the nature and objectives of the proposed activities. --------- The consortium includes leading research institutions and a leading higher education establishment and this fully adhere to Work Programme requirements. The contribution to the project by the lead institutions supporting the Coordinator is described in deep detail in the proposal; this ensures that the lead institutions involved in the project will provide excellent support to the beneficiary, helping it to achieve the project’s objectives. Distribution of roles and responsibilities in WP participation and activities development have been given considering experiences and competences of each partner and are very appropriate for the project objective achievement. Specific expertise and infrastructures provided by consortium partner are completely adequate with the allocated tasks needs. Industrial or commercial involvement does not appear to play a significant role in the project but the structural uptake and permanent adoption in the Widening institution appears to provide a successful exploitation. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions and a higher education institution that clearly provides the beneficiary with the necessary support to successfully implement the project. The leading institutions provide the Widening beneficiary the necessary support to successfully achieve the project objectives within the implementation of the project. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives. The consortium expertise is well aligned with the allocated tasks with and adequate interrelation between partners, Work Packages and tasks. Industrial or commercial involvement does not appear to play a significant role in the project, as the project primarily aims to achieve impact on policy making; in this regard, the proposal adequately defines how this objective will be accomplished. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101340993/AGES-20/07/2026-22:30:57 5/6  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340993/AGES-20/07/2026-22:30:57 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T22:31:02 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340992 Proposal acronym: PV-Accel Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: ACCELERATING R&I CAPACITY AND EXCELLENCE IN ECO-DESIGN OF THIN-FILM PHOTOVOLTAICS FOR SPECIALTY APPLICATIONS Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 674,515 44.97% 674,515 44.97% 2 FUNDACIO INSTITUT DE RECERCA EN ENERGIA DE ES 325,312.5 21.69% 325,312.5 21.69% CATALUNYA 3 THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS OF THE UK 324,984.25 21.67% 324,984.25 21.67% UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 4 CTF SOLAR GmbH DE 175,187.5 11.68% 175,187.5 11.68% Total: 1,499,999.25 1,499,999.25 Abstract: The EU climate targets under the Fit for 55 package and REPowerEU promote accelerated exploitation of R&D&I potential to drive green and sustainable growth. In this context, PV-Accel is a capacity-building network aiming at breakthrough development of emerging thin-film photovoltaics (TF PV). PV-Accel unites TalTech - a rising player in TF PV - with leading EU partners: OXF, a world-leading group in efect-tolerant semiconductors, advanced characterisation and IPV standardisation; IREC, a pioneer in low-dimensional TF PV and university - industry collaboration; and CTF, providing industrial-scale expertise in TF PV manufacturing and system integration. Together, they bridge lab-to-fab translation, reduce technological risk, and accelerate deployment of scalable PV technologies. PV-Accel delivers a holistic R&I approach integrating advanced materials, AI-driven methodologies, characterisation and LCA across the PV value chain, targeting cost-effective, eco-designed solutions for specialty PV markets with high potential for rapid uptake and EU-based manufacturing. The strategy is supported by coordinated capacity- building actions to enhance knowledge and skills in technology transfer, IPR management, and industry collaboration, at TalTech - aligned with Estonian and EU R&D&I priorities. Through joint activities - including 3 thematic training schools, workshops, research exchanges, onsite visits, and dissemination at conferences and industry events - PV-Accel strengthens research excellence, administrative capacity, and innovation pathways. PV- Accel will enable deployment of innovative green technologies, contributing to job creation, a low-carbon economy, and strengthening the EU PV value chain. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340992/PV-Accel-20/07/2026-21:23:29 1/6  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The main objective, to strengthen R&D&I excellence and capacity in the trans-disciplinary field of eco-design emerging inorganic Sb-chalcogenide thin-film solar cells technology, is clear. However, the project objectives are not specific in reference to the reported aim. Consequently, the measurability, achievability and verifiability are not sufficiently convincing, although some KPIs are listed. The objectives are not convincingly pertinent to those of the Work Programme. The proposal does not go deeply into the description of the adherence to the topic requirements. Especially, the aspects of stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator and novel R&I collaboration approaches are not fully evident. --------- The proposal’s objectives are of high quality, clearly defined, and well aligned with appropriate KPIs. As a result, the proposed work is feasible, measurable, and verifiable. The R&I collaboration focuses on the development of novel materials and approaches for the photovoltaic market. Technical staff mobility is adequately addressed. Overall, the planned activities are well aligned with the objectives of the work programme and contribute to strengthening the technical and scientific capacity of the widening partner. However, the role of administrative staff is insufficiently considered. In addition, the objectives are largely focused on the widening partner, rather than addressing broader regional or national priorities. --------- The proposal presents clear, measurable, and achievable research and management objectives, supported by well-defined indicators that enable verification of progress. These objectives are highly pertinent to the Work Programme, particularly in strengthening research capacity and excellence among widening beneficiaries, enhancing institutional reputation, and fostering increased researcher mobility in both directions. The collaboration also promotes stronger strategic ties between participating institutions. While aspects such as novel R&I collaboration approaches and research management capacity strengthening are less explicitly detailed, the overall framework strongly aligns with the programme’s core priorities. --------- This topic-area (Thin-Film PV) is a national and EU-priority, and the proposal convincingly presents achievable objectives, which are measurable and verifiable. PV-Accel objectives are pertinent to the work programme. It is a research & capacity-building proposal aiming to make a breakthrough development in TF-PV. The widening partner, the only reputed technical university in their country who is a local player in TF PV, with a limited critical-mass expertise and skills in that area, associates with a few leading and reputed EU partners to benefit. The novel R&I collaboration and research management approaches are expected to help the widening partner, and more broadly its national research ecosystem, address existing research and mobility gaps and enhance their capacity to make significant contributions to the field. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed activities and methodology are not sufficiently sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, because the description mostly focuses on the R&D&I platform, the state-of-the-art, the scientific and technological breakthroughs and the three R&D pillars. The aspect of staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach is not sufficiently elaborated. Research component is deeply explained, with plenty of details, although the description is not effective in demonstrating the holistic complementary approach and the way to address the challenges in an integrated manner. The proposal does not adequately address the aspects of improving management capacities of the coordinator; the description about capacity-building activities, especially management and administrative skills, is rather vague. Challenges and mitigation measures are not adequately addressed and elaborated. Open Science practices are properly addressed. --------- The methodology is very well defined and sound, and it is fully aligned with the project objectives. The proposal ensures effective knowledge management through technology transfer and staff exchanges. The research work package incorporates high-quality, novel ideas, which are convincingly supported by the provided state-of-the-art (SOTA) analysis. The proposed work has the potential to advance beyond the current SOTA, given the targeted KPIs and the applicants’ demonstrated track record in the field. However, while the proposal focuses on Sb₂(S,Se)₃, which is generally considered non-toxic, it relies on antimony (Sb), a critical raw material with known toxicity concerns. The proposed activities related to open science practices are appropriate, including the implementation of a data management plan. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures are generally sound and appropriate to achieve the stated objectives. The activities, including innovative research aligned with the consortium’s expertise, are well conceived and relevant, although mitigation measures for identified challenges are not sufficiently described. The research component is robust and contributes to advancing the state of the art, with the gender dimension adequately integrated. Elements related to strengthening research management capacities are not adequately detailed. The overall methodology is coherent. Open Science practices are well addressed, with clear consideration of FAIR principles and an appropriate data management plan. --------- The widening partner proposes activities based on a sound SWOT analysis. It convincingly shows that this CSA will provide them with new expertise, mobility and the critical mass needed. The challenges and mitigation measures are very appropriate. The R&I approach integrates the entire PV value chain of cost-effective non-toxic materials, solutions for specialty PV devices going beyond the SoA with high potential for rapid uptake to EU-based eco-manufacturing. It directly addresses the gaps that remain in advanced materials characterisation, technology transfer, and international leadership. It is further supported by capacity-building actions to enhance knowledge transfer, research & IPR management, administrative capacity, industry exposure and training & team building. Regarding gender dimension, the proposal includes appropriately an LCA study wherein gender-based human health and physical differences are to be studied. Open Science aspects are described very well. Criterion 2 - Impact 101340992/PV-Accel-20/07/2026-21:23:29 2/6  Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- The project results are not credible enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme, because they are rather unspecific, also in the section of wider impacts; the proposal is mainly detailing the wider Expected Outcomes specified in emerging HORIZON EUROPE topics, in particular the mentioned ‘’Next generation of renewable energy technologies‘’. Sufficient scale and significance are reported, not only at the Coordinator, but also at European level. The proposed indicators, although well listed, are not adequately justified to measure the expected impacts. --------- The proposal credibly outlines pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts, supported by mostly realistic indicators. it shows strong potential to strengthen academia–business links and improve career permeability. Technology transfer with international partners and spin-off learning activities support project sustainability. The provided KPIs for the expected impacts are very good, although training activities at the widening partner and projected progress for some KPIs are limited. While publication in high-impact journals is positive, its impact is reduced as most are led by international partners, limiting the widening partner’s visibility and recognition. --------- The proposal demonstrates credible pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme, including quantifiable and qualitative indicators at both the widening country and the European level. Research challenges and emerging opportunities are clearly described. The inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative indicators is appropriate and enables effective measurement of impacts, thereby supporting a robust assessment of project success. --------- The outputs will help to deploy innovative technologies conforming to EU standards of future PV integrations, thus contributing to societal, ecological and energy value chain. The project results will be credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts. The widening partner is to gain significant international standing in the field with better institutional competence. As the field is shifting toward a diversified TF-PV portfolio tailored to specific lighting requirements, PV-ACCEL's unexplored benign material system with near- ideal properties will be scientifically and industrially impactful. The project indicators are good to measure and capture those impacts. All the partners will benefit and be a part of these high impacts. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination and communication measures are suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope. The proposal properly reports target groups & objectives, channels and planned activities. The description of the set of activities dedicated to the exploitation is not sufficiently developed and does not provide enough information about how to pursue market opportunities arising from the project. The proposal properly analyzes the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project; the related mitigation measures are, in general, appropriate and convincing, except in the case of the industrial and economical barriers. Intellectual property management and protection is not deeply described, and it refers to the future consortium agreement. --------- The dissemination, communication, and exploitation strategy is very well planned, with a dedicated work package. The proposal has suitably identified several KPIs to ensure the maximisation of the expected outcomes and impacts. The proposal adequately identifies potential barriers and the corresponding mitigation measures. However, intellectual property management is insufficiently addressed, particularly given that the partners aim to pursue patent applications and knowledge transfer activities. --------- The dissemination and communication measures are clear, realistic, and supported by concrete, impactful KPIs, ensuring relevance beyond the project’s duration. Barriers to impact from external factors are well identified and addressed through coherent and appropriate mitigation actions. However, while a individual exploitation strategy is elaborated, the common one is insufficiently detailed. Similarly, intellectual property rights management is not comprehensively described, which may limit the clarity and effectiveness of long-term exploitation and protection of results. --------- The potential stakeholders for dissemination, exploitation, and communication actions are listed for meeting the targeted audiences, which include academia, internal admin staff, industry, policy makers, the public, etc., in a convincing manner. The project analyses clearly the external barriers to its impact, and the proposed mitigation measures are of very good quality. It covers and addresses several important factors such as economic, technical, regulatory and other stakeholders, in a serious and effective manner. IPR is expected. its management strategy, to be defined at the start, is to conform to the recommendations of Horizon Results booster, the European IPR help-desk, and the commitments described in the CA. It is of good quality. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340992/PV-Accel-20/07/2026-21:23:29 3/6  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is effective, well-structured and logically timed, with a fair description of the tasks, and sufficient list of deliverables and milestones to document and monitor the progress; however, the visual representation of the holistic approach to the R&D&I platform in WP1 and associated R&D Pillars is not sufficiently elaborated. The Pert Chart well illustrates the interrelation among the work packages. The distribution of resources is appropriate in relation to the planned activities and is consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A. The research component spans multiple WPs; budget caps are not clearly shown. Risks and related mitigation measures are not properly described, mostly being rather vague. This is the case, for instance, of the risks related to communication difficulties among the Twinning partners, advanced characterization setup is out of order, poor organisation of staff mobility and short visits, difficulties to organise summer schools. --------- The work plan is consistent and very well structured. The associated activities are appropriately scheduled. A comprehensive list of deliverables is defined for each work package (WP). The milestones are generally appropriate; however, those related to R&I lack sufficient relevance. In particular, insufficient metrics are provided for the device development. The allocation of person-months per WP is appropriate, although rather focused on R&I work. The research component spans multiple WPs; the budget caps are not clearly shown. The proposal identifies a relevant set of risks, and the proposed mitigation measures are generally appropriate. However, some of them are less convincing, such as the mitigation strategy related to the potential non-completion of the LCA. --------- The work plan is highly effective, well-structured, and logically organised, with clearly interrelated work packages and a consistent allocation of resources across Part A and Part B. The distribution of person-months and budget is appropriate and well justified. Risks related to the project implementation are clearly identified, and the proposed mitigation measures are coherent and adequate, supporting the feasibility and robustness of the project execution. --------- The work plan is well-structured, effective, detailed and shows a clear interrelationship between the WPs. The deliverables and milestones are of good quality. The distribution of resources is appropriate and consistent across the tables in both parts of the proposal. The timelines are appropriate. The risks related to implementation are clearly described in detail, and the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate to make the project a success. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The description is good to demonstrate that the leading institutions provide to the coordinator the necessary support to successfully implement the project activities. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives and sufficiently presented. Consortium’s expertise is well aligned with the allocated tasks. Integration of complementary infrastructures and access to both research and industrial existing infrastructures are well discussed. The industrial involvement is adequate for exploitation of results: one of the partners, in particular, contributes a broad industrial network across the EU PV value chain, including links to equipment suppliers, manufacturers, and investors, supporting future exploitation and deployment pathways. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading research institutes and an SME. The leading institutions provide insufficient support to the widening beneficiary to ensure successful project implementation. As a result, the distribution of roles and responsibilities is unbalanced. For instance, in nearly 90% of the cases, the widening partner is responsible for the deliverables, while other partners lead some of the associated tasks. For example, one of the international partners, who is mentoring on ERC grant writing, is not leading the corresponding deliverable. Moreover, several activities have been assigned to the JRC without sufficient justification. The involvement of industrial and commercial partners is, however, fully appropriate for the exploitation of project results, given the targeted TRL at the end of the project. --------- The consortium brings together strong and complementary expertise, including internationally leading higher education institutions, an industrial partner and a research centre, ensuring a high level of excellence. These leading partners provide effective support to the widening beneficiary, fostering capacity building and knowledge transfer. Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and well aligned with the project’s objectives, ensuring efficient implementation. The expertise and infrastructure of all participants match well with the assigned tasks. Furthermore, the involvement of an industrial partner is appropriate and strengthens the exploitation potential of the project results. --------- This is a strong and balanced consortium of four partners, where two partners are reputed universities and one is a reputed international research organisation. The 4th one is a GmbH company, but not a SME. The leading institutions clearly provide the Widening beneficiary the necessary support to successfully implement this project, with the partners’ roles and responsibilities clearly casted to the project’s objectives. The academic partners, including the widening beneficiary, have the required expertise and infrastructure to carry out the allocated tasks. The commercial partner's involvement is also credible as they have built a 300MWp PV production plant and they are providing the widening partner access to their pilot-line for thin film PV, advanced characterisation tools, and industrial testing environments, enabling technology demonstration under industry-relevant conditions. Thus, the commercial involvement is adequate for exploitation of results. Scope of the application 101340992/PV-Accel-20/07/2026-21:23:29 4/6  Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments 101340992/PV-Accel-20/07/2026-21:23:29 5/6  This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340992/PV-Accel-20/07/2026-21:23:29 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T21:23:36 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101340354 Proposal acronym: HealthTech Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Advancing TalTech into a Competitive Health Technologies Research and Innovation Centre Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 717,051.06 47.80% 717,051.06 47.80% 2 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT EINDHOVEN NL 486,313.94 32.42% 486,313.94 32.42% 3 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO FI 296,635 19.78% 296,635 19.78% Total: 1,500,000 1,500,000 Abstract: The HealthTech Twinning project strengthens TalTech’s scientific excellence, research‑management capacity, and doctoral training in person‑centred health technologies for non‑communicable diseases (NCDs). Through strategic collaboration with the University of Helsinki (UH) and Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), the project builds a coherent programme of excellence transfer that integrates engineering, clinical, behavioural, and socio‑ethical expertise. The scientific focus spans three interconnected areas: wearable biosensing, digital‑health systems, and diagnostic safety, forming a multidisciplinary framework that supports prevention, monitoring, treatment, and diagnostics for major NCDs. These domains converge around a shared ambition to develop person‑centred, ethically robust, and clinically meaningful HealthTech solutions. The project delivers structured capacity‑building through joint research activities, targeted training, mobility, and co‑creation with clinical and societal stakeholders. UH contributes leading expertise in clinical validation, patient experience, and socio‑ethical analysis, ensuring that technological developments are grounded in real‑world needs and equitable care pathways. TU/e provides advanced competencies in engineering, systems design, and innovation methodologies, supporting TalTech in adopting high‑quality research practices and multidisciplinary collaboration models. Beyond scientific excellence, the project strengthens TalTech’s institutional capabilities in research management, strategic planning, doctoral supervision, and international project coordination. Enhanced doctoral training pathways, improved supervision practices, and exposure to clinical and industrial environments contribute to long‑term talent development. Through integrated dissemination, exploitation, and sustainability actions, the project positions TalTech as a competitive European actor in person‑centred HealthTech research and innovation. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 11.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101340354/HealthTech-20/07/2026-20:48:31 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) The objectives are clear, but some specific objectives' details are insufficient, e.g., ambiguous staff exchange KPIs. The research benefit of combining the pilots is unclear, particularly the link between Pilots 1 and 2 with Pilot 3, given their different health impact timeframes and hard-to-measure outcomes. Pilot 3 also mixes radiation exposure safety with AI tool validation, which appears to belong to a different technological domain. Workflow integration is an industry practice rather than research. A WP details stronger ties, and reputation is addressed through publications, citations and PhDs. Objectives includes a Research Management team, but R&I approaches lack novelty. Mobility and summer/winter schools are mentioned with limited detail. --------- The objectives are overall clear and achievable, with sufficient means for verification. The credibility of the first objective (scientific excellence) is moderate, because there is insufficient definition of the areas in which the planned research will advance the state-of-the-art or result in innovative products or services. The objectives are pertinent to the work programme, addressing all of the items, except novel R&I collaboration approaches which are not well integrated (there are descriptions of some approaches such as brainstorming sessions, open discussions, and collaborative problem-solving, but these are not substantiated as tasks nor linked to indicators). --------- The objectives are clear, mostly measurable, and well aligned with the proposed activities. However, the absence of some explicit baselines and the considerable thematic scope partially reduce the demonstration of their full verifiability and achievability. The proposal focuses strongly on strengthening leaders' scientific capacity. The long-term institutional sustainability of the collaboration's strategic ties is not fully credible. The leader's higher institutional reputation and attractiveness are deeply included. The promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration is covered, although broadly described. The researcher mobility is fully included. --------- The objectives are clearly structured into specific objectives with defined KPIs (publications, citations, mobility, proposals), making them measurable and verifiable. Targets are generally realistic, though a shortcoming is that some ambition levels are not fully justified. Overall, the objectives are clear and pertinent, with shortcomings in KPIs' justification. The objectives are well aligned with the Work Programme, addressing capacity building of the widening institution, excellence transfer with leading partners, and strengthening research management and doctoral training. Mobility, networking, and new collaboration models are well integrated. The link to increased reputation and attractiveness is credible. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? Collaboration includes workshops, pilots showcase, short-term visits, co-supervision, and shared tools/training materials. It covers co-designed protocols for the pilots, integration of technical, clinical and person-centred perspectives, stronger scientific excellence, and early outputs. Gender dimension is integrated across activities: research design, PhD courses, pilots, co-supervised projects, and training on bias and inclusive design. GDPR, ethics and human participant safeguards are also well described. Open science through open access, Zenodo/OpenAIRE deposits, and a FAIR-compliant DMP is described. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are overall adequate and support the objectives, with the research component articulated on the basis of pilots on different research areas. There is a research management WP, although not a clear mention of a dedicated team. Open Science practices are adequate for the project, including open publication and open sharing of data and other research outputs. --------- The planned staff exchanges, expert visits, training activities, workshops and outreach actions are relevant and appropriate for supporting knowledge transfer and international networking, although some activities remain broadly described. The research component addresses innovative HealthTech areas and includes gender, ethical, and SSH-related aspects, while the research management component appropriately supports capacity building through training and mentoring activities. The proposal includes appropriate Open Science measures, such as open access publications, FAIR data management, use of research repositories, and sharing of research outputs and protocols. Ethical and data protection issues related to health data are also properly considered. Nevertheless, the proposal gives only limited detail on how these Open Science practices will be monitored and maintained in the longer term. --------- The proposed measures are comprehensive and well aligned with the objectives, combining staff exchanges, training, workshops, and joint doctoral activities in a coherent capacity-building approach. The methodology is structured and credible, with clear progression from knowledge transfer to institutionalisation, supported by appropriate feedback and monitoring mechanisms. The research component is clearly separated in a dedicated WP and remains limited in scope, supporting excellence transfer through focused pilot studies rather than standalone research. The inclusion of research-management capacity building is a strong point, with concrete actions to professionalise support structures. Risks and mitigation measures are identified and generally appropriate. Open Science practices are well addressed, with commitments to open access, FAIR data, and reproducibility. Overall, the methodology is sound, with minor shortcomings in the level of detail for some activities. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101340354/HealthTech-20/07/2026-20:48:31 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? Results on improving administrative staff research management capacity are credible. However, innovation research capacity from the pilots is unclear, e.g., the minimum patient sample size needed for relevance is not specified. Expected outcomes are therefore only partially achievable. Most indicators are adequate and reflect collaboration. However, publications and solutions based on bio-signal registries, clinical practice and health outcomes are not clear, as the pilots are poorly defined. Remote patient monitoring is already an industrial reality, with many higher-scale publications and commercial solutions. Certification pathway for hardware and software is also not addressed. --------- The credibility of the project’s contribution to the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme is sufficient, with a moderate scale and importance. Indicators are adequate to measure the expected impacts for scientific outputs, mobility and funding acquisition. Indicators for collaborations and IP are not clearly provided. --------- Some expected impacts, particularly those related to the coordinator's positioning as a competitive European "HealthTech" actor and broader institutional transformation, remain insufficiently substantiated. While the proposal presents relevant activities in wearable biosensing, digital health, and diagnostic safety, the pathway explaining how these activities will translate into long-term institutional impact is not always sufficiently detailed. Although the proposal includes several quantitative indicators, some are mainly focused on activities and outputs rather than long-term institutional or structural impact. Reference values for several percentage-based indicators are not clearly presented, limiting the assessment. --------- The pathways to impact are credible and logically linked to the planned activities, with a clear focus on strengthening the coordinator’s research capacity, networking, and visibility. Expected results are realistic for a Twinning action and of sufficient scale to contribute to the Work Programme outcomes, particularly in terms of excellence transfer and institutional development. The proposal provides a comprehensive set of quantitative indicators (publications, proposals, mobility, collaborations), which are quite appropriate to monitor progress. However, some targets lack baseline justification and the link to longer-term structural impact remains partly implicit. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are suitable and clearly identified. There are not clear mentions of outside barriers and mitigation measures. Intellectual property (IP) management in HealthTech is designed to protect both pre-existing and newly generated assets, while enabling responsible exploitation and long-term uptake. All IP-related provisions will be governed by the Consortium Agreement. Exploitation of results is also clearly defined. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are well planned and of good quality. Barriers to impact and the corresponding mitigation measures are not adequately analysed, as insufficient information is provided regarding external factors that could hinder the project’s impact. Intellectual property management is appropriate for the nature of the project, and includes training on protection strategies. --------- The proposal includes a broad range of dissemination, communication, and exploitation measures but provides limited detail on how wider replication or sustained exploitation will be concretely ensured. The proposal identifies well several external risks and their mitigation strategies. However, a few external risks, particularly those related to external disruptions, remain inherently difficult to control within the project framework, and the proposed mitigation approach for these aspects remains relatively weak and general. The proposal presents a generally adequate framework for IP management. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are appropriate and target scientific and stakeholder audiences through publications, events, and outreach. The approach supports visibility and knowledge transfer beyond the consortium, though long-term sustainability is only partly developed. Exploitation focuses mainly on capacity building and collaborations, with limited detail on concrete uptake pathways. Overall, the measures are suitable, with several shortcomings in depth and long-term impact. External barriers are identified, and mitigation measures are generally adequate, though not fully substantiated. Intellectual property aspects are addressed but remain high-level. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 3.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101340354/HealthTech-20/07/2026-20:48:31 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? The project is structured into WPs, and tasks within the WPs are correlated, but WPs are poorly correlated (are independent for the most part). There are deliverables and milestones described. In the pilot WP, the tasks and details are poorly defined, PMs allocation hardly relate with the identified desired outcomes and impacts. 50% budget caps not clearly shown. Risks are described with indication of likelihood and severity and mitigation measures, but they are insufficiently described. There is no identification of risks regarding any of the pilots, for example: low number of participants for pilot 1 and 2, and regarding pilot 3 it is not specified how the consortium obtained the already existing data from previous imaging registries (which hospitals, kind of equipment, levels of radiation, etc). Datasets obtained for the pilots should be balanced regarding biased results, however, there is no mention on the subject. --------- The work plan is well timed and organized. However, it does not support the objectives in different areas: e.g., 1) the objective of joint PhD supervision is not substantiated in the work plan; 2) The planning of WP1 is not credible, as the resources available (person months and time frame) are clearly insufficient to support the pilots. 50% budget cap is not clearly shown. Risks are overall properly identified with adequate mitigation measures, addressing all relevant areas of the proposal, however, one of the risks identified in the analysis is “Fragmented research groups and limited cross-disciplinary collaboration”, but the mitigating actions to address this are insufficiently described. --------- The work plan is generally well structured and follows a logical progression and consistency. However, the proposal does not always provide sufficient detail to fully justify the overall workload and high number of activities. 50% budget cap is not clearly shown. The proposal identifies several relevant implementation risks together with corresponding mitigation measures. For certain external risks, particularly those related to geopolitical instability or broader external disruptions, the proposed mitigation measures remain relatively general and difficult to operationalize within the project framework. --------- The work plan is well structured, with clearly defined and interrelated work packages aligned with the project objectives and a logical sequencing of activities over time. The allocation of tasks, person-months, and budget is generally coherent, supporting effective implementation. Overall resource allocation across beneficiaries is appropriate, though some budget estimations lack detailed justification. 50% budget cap is not clearly shown. Key implementation risks are identified, including coordination and participation challenges, and mitigation measures are generally adequate. Overall, the work plan is effective, with several shortcomings related to budget compliance and substantiation. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? Leading institutions are strong in their fields, creating clear benefit for the Coordinator. Overall, the leading institutions provide the necessary support to the Widening beneficiary. However, some participation details are unclear, e.g., in which country/countries the pilots will take place. Some partner roles and responsibilities remain unclear due to limited detail. The consortium has relevant expertise, including sensor technology and data mining capacity, supported by the leading entities. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading universities from advanced countries. In general terms the leading institutions can provide the necessary support. The partners’ roles and responsibilities within the consortium are clearly described and well aligned with the project’s objectives. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure is overall well aligned with the allocated tasks, although the description of the existing technology and expertise for the pilots is not fully clear. This is especially problematic for the last pilot, a field in which the partners have insufficiently demonstrated previous experience. Industrial involvement is clearly presented, articulated around stakeholder workshops and resulting in the co-development of an Innovation & Commercialisation Toolkit. --------- The consortium includes well-recognized higher education institutions providing complementary expertise. The proposal presents relevant previous projects, publications, and research activities supporting their scientific competence, but limited concrete internationally benchmarked indicators and rankings are provided to fully substantiate this claim. The roles and responsibilities of the partners are generally well aligned with the project objectives. The proposal refers to laboratories, previous projects, innovation ecosystems, and doctoral-training experience supporting the planned activities, but some infrastructure descriptions remain relatively brief, and the operational contribution of certain facilities to the specific pilot activities is not always fully detailed. --------- The consortium includes internationally leading institutions that bring strong scientific expertise and relevant experience, supporting the credibility of the proposed excellence transfer. Their role in mentoring, training, and joint activities is clearly defined and aligned with the project objectives, providing appropriate support to the widening coordinator. The distribution of roles and responsibilities across partners is coherent, with tasks allocated according to expertise. The consortium combines complementary skills in research, training, and management, and available infrastructure is adequate for the planned activities. Industrial involvement is limited, which is acceptable given the CSA nature, though it slightly reduces potential for downstream exploitation. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101340354/HealthTech-20/07/2026-20:48:31 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101340354/HealthTech-20/07/2026-20:48:31 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T20:48:40 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol.  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101338858 Proposal acronym: SoftAI Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Advancing AI Soft Skills for Human-Centric AI Research, Education and Industry Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 678,906.25 45.32% 678,906.25 45.32% 2 GEORG-AUGUST-UNIVERSITAT GOTTINGEN STIFTUNG DE 243,412.5 16.25% 243,412.5 16.25% OFFENTLICHEN RECHTS 3 COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL DK 310,865.31 20.75% 310,865.31 20.75% 4 TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY IL 264,992.5 17.69% 264,992.5 17.69% Total: 1,498,176.56 1,498,176.56 Abstract: SoftAI addresses a central challenge of the AI transformation: while AI literacy is advancing rapidly on the technical side, its ‘soft’ dimension — how humans delegate to, collaborate with and critically evaluate AI systems — remains poorly defined and difficult to train. Without AI soft skills, individuals and organisations risk overreliance on AI and accelerated deskilling. SoftAI will — through structured capacity building and coordinated research — develop a concrete pathway towards responsible AI development and use. Estonia, and TalTech in particular, are at the forefront of technical AI literacy, and host AIRE-EDIH (AI & Robotics Estonia), a European Digital Innovation Hub. Yet TalTech’s growing research group on AI and work is methodologically concentrated on qualitative approaches and needs a capacity boost to conduct advanced multi-method research, upgrade its research management for the AI age, and build multiple valorisation pathways. Through Twinning with three internationally leading partners — U. of Göttingen, Copenhagen Business School and Tel Aviv U. — SoftAI drives institutional transformation at TalTech while generating substantial benefits for all partners through a coordinated research programme, shared tools and expanded researcher training and mobility networks that no partner could achieve alone. The project pursues four interlinked objectives: (1) build world-class research capacity at TalTech through advanced methods training, structured mobility and mentoring with leading partners; (2) upgrade and future-proof TalTech’s research management for the AI age, in line with RM Comp, (3) advance the knowledge base on AI soft skills through multi-method research (experimental, neuroscientific, qualitative and mixed methods); and (4) boost capacity to valorise research for education, industry and R&D. Together, these objectives place capacity building, collaboration and institutional transformation at the centre. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101338858/SoftAI-20/07/2026-22:45:20 1/5  1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) The objectives are clear, credible and sufficiently specific to guide implementation. They are supported by verifiable targets. The integration pathway for the prompt library and the project tool in research-management offices is not sufficiently specified. The objectives are highly pertinent to the call. They adequately address the coordinator’s research capacity, international links, staff profile, mobility, research-management capacity and new collaboration models. The description of the external valorisation objective is not sufficiently justified. --------- The objectives are clearly articulated and well-formulated. They are supported and verifiable by concrete and largely measurable performance indicators. Achievability is convincingly justified through existing collaboration, infrastructure, and complementary expertise. The objectives are ambitious and realistic, especially in combining research excellence with institutional transformation. The proposal is aligned with the Work Programme and convincingly addresses improved research excellence and capacity, stronger strategic ties with leading institutions, enhanced institutional reputation and strengthened research management capacities. The R&I collaboration approaches are adequate. The mobility measures are clearly defined and supportive of both inward and outward exchanges. --------- The objectives are clear and measurable through specific indicators. Achievability is supported by the consortium's expertise. However, the proposal does not provide sufficiently verifiable evidence because it evaluates qualitative structural shifts by means of quantitative metrics. The project properly addresses capacity building, strategic ties, and reputation enhancement and it explicitly targets support staff capabilities and increases mobility. However, the collaboration mechanisms are not sufficiently credible because they mostly rely on traditional training formats (workshops, stays) without emphasizing novel approaches (e.g. cross- institutional labs). --------- The objectives are clear and achievable. Specific performance indicators exist that are explicitly linked to each of those objective, contributing to their measurability and verifiability. Objectives credibly contribute to: stronger strategic ties between coordinator and leading institutions; increased coordinator reputation and attractiveness; strengthened coordinator research management capacity, and increased mobility.The proposal does not sufficiently present novel and coherent R&I collaboration strategies: the combination of building technical skills with research management is not clearly presented as a mechanism to achieve proposal's objectives. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? The proposed activities are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. They credibly connect research capacity-building, research-management improvement, technical support practices and translation of results into institutional and external use. The gender dimension is adequately integrated in the research methodology, as it is relevant to the analysis of human interaction with related soft-skills development. The challenges analysis is useful and clearly linked to implementation. A minor shortcoming is that the technical validation of the original software tool and the practical control of language-country effects in the empirical studies are not clearly presented. Open science practices are adequately integrated. The use of open access publications, FAIR data, open analytical code and open training materials is appropriate. Restrictions for sensitive data and industry-facing materials are justified. --------- The methodology is comprehensive and well-structured, combining research, training, mobility, and institutional capacity building. The dual-engine approach is sound and well justified, ensuring interconnections between knowledge creation and capacity building. Gender dimension is appropriately integrated in the research context. Open Science is very well addressed and carefully prepared, with a strong commitment to FAIR principles, open data, and reproducibility. --------- The methodology effectively supports the objectives. Capacity-building activities are logically sequenced. The research proposes an adequate and innovative strategy focusing on non-technical capabilities using a mixed-methods approach, integrating the gender dimension. The management upgrade aligns with international frameworks and introduces practical tools. Challenges are thoroughly addressed. However, the terminology underpinning the core framework is not described with sufficient clarity, as certain terms and definitions are not clearly specified, resulting in inconsistencies in the interpretation of the relationship between the research activities and the capacity-building component. Open Science practices are well integrated. The proposal mandates pre-registered studies, open publishing, and standardized data sharing via established open platforms. --------- The proposed activities are appropriate to achieve the objectives, encompassing research exchanges, schools, and seminars among others. However, the proposal only partly demonstrates how the research component will advance beyond the current state of the art. The gender dimension is appropriately taken into consideration in the research component WP. The proposal appropriately and adequately puts forward a WP to improve coordinator's research management capacity and to upgrade the capabilities of a dedicated team. There exists a clearly explained and convincing Open Science integration plan, adhering to various Open Science aspects (publications, data, code, training material, and more). Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101338858/SoftAI-20/07/2026-22:45:20 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? The impact pathway is credible for strengthening the coordinator’s methodological capacity, mobility and supervision links. The expected institutional scale is meaningful. However, broader impact claims on reaching large practitioner groups and influencing skills policy are not sufficiently credible, as they are not supported by clear firm adoption commitments. The indicators are appropriate for tracking outputs and implementation progress. However, the proposal does not deliver sufficiently precise information on indicators measuring actual competence gains, changed users’ behaviour, durable industry demand or policy uptake. This limitation does not provide sufficient evidence to assess the expected impact beyond counts of activities. --------- The project demonstrates credible and well-structured pathways to impact, with clear links between activities, results, outcomes, and long-term impacts. The proposed scale of activities is realistic and well aligned with the project’s objectives. The proposal shows an important focus on institutional transformation and sustainability. Indicators are clear, relevant, and measurable, covering both quantitative and qualitative aspects. --------- The results are credible and at sufficient scale to achieve the expected impacts. The pathways logically connect training to institutional upgrades. Direct engagement with external industry and policy stakeholders during the project is not sufficiently justified if compared to the internal focus. The indicators establish clear targets for mobility, publication outputs, and training completion. The metrics effectively differentiate between short-term achievements and long-term goals. The proposal does not sufficiently take into account robust qualitative indicators and do not clearly assess the impact of the action. --------- The results are credible, at sufficient scale, and relevant to achieve the Work Programme expected outcomes. However, the true impact of the objectives in terms of strategic collaboration among institutions is not sufficiently explained since the proposal provides evidence that the beneficiary has already established solid collaborations with a few partners of the consortium. The proposed indicators are mostly quantitative and credible to measure the expected impacts: they encompass number of publications, grant proposals, training micro-modules, trained staff, researchers mobility, and prompt library. However, the number of papers promised to be submitted to top journals is not sufficiently justified in the proposal for this type of not research intensive project. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? The communication, dissemination and exploitation measures are appropriate for the project’s target groups. The internal exploitation route through research- management offices is credible. The identification of the industry-facing route is not sufficiently credible because it depends strongly on the coordinator’s innovation hub pipeline and on a revenue model developed relatively late. External barriers are adequately identified. A shortcoming is that the mitigation approach is weakly justified because it focuses more on adapting project outputs than on securing uptake by external organizations. Intellectual property management arrangements are adequate, with a consortium agreement covering background, foreground and planning for the original software tool. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication plan is comprehensive, well-structured, and realistic, targeting multiple stakeholders in an effective manner. It demonstrates strong integration of scientific dissemination, policy engagement, and industry exploitation. Barriers are clearly identified and thoughtfully analyzed, covering technological, policy, and cultural challenges. The analysis of national-level barriers is strong and convincing for the project uptake. The proposed mitigation measures are appropriate and well justified. Intellectual property management is adequate and standard, with a clear consortium agreement. --------- The dissemination and exploitation measures are comprehensive targeting different audiences. Sustainability is credible by embedding services within an established innovation hub. The communication plan is not sufficiently justified because it mostly focuses on specialized stakeholders leaving out the public-at-large. The proposal adequately analyzes external barriers, correctly identifying rapid technological shifts and conflicting national policy priorities. The proposed mitigation measures are not fully convincing. The intellectual property management strategy establishes clear, appropriate rules for background knowledge and foreground ownership. --------- Dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are adequate: a few of them are original and credible to be impactful beyond project's duration (e.g., the proposed sparring partner original software tool). The project has clearly presented external barriers to its impact. However, their description is not fully developed. Some of the proposed mitigation measures are not sufficiently convincing. Intellectual property management and protection is adequate since it is appropriately integrated in the consortium agreement. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101338858/SoftAI-20/07/2026-22:45:20 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? The work plan is logically sequenced and the WPs are mutually connected. However, the effort allocation is not fully convincing for the breadth of activities proposed. The planned coordinator and partner contributions are not sufficiently described in relation to the expected training, mobility, mentoring, research- management exchange and valorization support, dissemination, communication, exploitation and project management. The implementation risks are clearly described and the mitigation measures are credible for routine coordination and stakeholder-engagement risks. However, mitigation measures are not fully justified for delays affecting interdependent downstream tasks since it relies mainly on monitoring. --------- The work plan is well-structured, coherent, and logically interconnected. The timeline is realistic with appropriate alignment between training and research activities. However, the proposal does not sufficiently justify the allocation of person-months and resources across activities. The resources allocated to some packages are not sufficiently realistic to achieve the objectives. The identification of risks related to project implementation is not sufficiently specified, and the proposed mitigation measures are not clearly identified. The concentration of leadership responsibilities within the coordinating institution is not fully convincing: the identification of the risk referring to the workload distribution and coordination efficiency is not sufficiently addressed. --------- The work plan is effectively structured and sequenced, featuring clear interrelations where research outputs feed directly into capacity-building. The distribution of effort reflects a balanced partnership. However, resources allocated for the development of a prototype tool are not sufficiently justified given its complexity. The proposal identifies a comprehensive set of implementation risks. The proposed mitigation measures offer credible practical solutions for risks associated with early preparatory training and proactive stakeholder engagement. However, the mitigation strategy is not sufficiently justified for delays in primary data collection and subsequent tasks because it relies more on standard management meetings than on a robust contingency plan. --------- The work plan is logically timed and well-structured, and the deliverables of appropriate scale. The WPs are well connected. The distribution of resources is not always sufficiently consistent with the proposed tasks in all the submitted material. Risks relative to implementation are clearly described, and mitigation measures are adequate and appropriately specific: they appropriately cover and tackle aspects such as stakeholder disengagement, low response rates in data collection, and difficulties in recruiting experts. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? The consortium is well structured and includes the required internationally leading institutions. Their expertise is relevant to the project’s needs and covers complementary strengths. The support offered by the leading partners is credible and well matched to the coordinator’s identified capacity gaps. The distribution of responsibilities is suitable. The coordinator is well identified to retain the ownership of the institutional capacity-building agenda, while the advanced partners provide specialized methods, training and infrastructure. Expertise and infrastructure are well connected to the tasks, including relevant labs, experimentation capacity, research management offices, executive education channels and the coordinator’s innovation hub. Industrial involvement is adequate by means of the coordinator’s innovation hub. However, direct commitments from specific companies or adopter groups are not clearly described and it entails some limitations for the industrial involvement for exploitation. --------- The consortium comprises strong and credible partners, with each lead institution providing relevant and complementary expertise for the successful delivery of the project. The support measures (training, mobility, mentoring) are well designed and highly relevant. The approach to knowledge transfer is structured and convincing, particularly through joint research and trainings. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and appropriately aligned with the project’s objectives. Responsibilities are adequately assigned at the work package level in accordance with each partner’s expertise and competencies. Consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. It provides appropriate research and training infrastructure to deliver objectives. Industrial involvement is not sufficiently integrated into the research activities: the insufficient participation of industrial partners affects the potential for broader uptake. --------- The well-structured consortium combines the coordinator's innovation hub with leading partners providing distinct, highly complementary research expertise. The leading partners provide comprehensive support, supplying essential methodological training and structured mentoring to the widening beneficiary. Roles are appropriate. The coordinator manages pilot implementations, while leading partners coordinate direct research segments based on their strengths. Expertise and infrastructure align with the tasks. Partners provide specialized facilities, including behavioral laboratories, necessary for the research. However, the proposal is not fully convincing about the industrial exploitation pathways for the leading partners. --------- The consortium is well structured and includes internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments. The leading research institutes are credible in providing the beneficiary the necessary support to successfully implement the project. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are appropriate for project objectives. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure are well-aligned with the tasks allocated to the various partners.There is evidence that a collaborating stakeholder provides an essential network and infrastructure to allow implementation of the proposal but it is not sufficiently clear the adequate industrial involvement for exploitation of results. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101338858/SoftAI-20/07/2026-22:45:20 4/5  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101338858/SoftAI-20/07/2026-22:45:20 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T22:45:25 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101339604 Proposal acronym: CO-THRIVE Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: COmmunity-led post-growTH tRansitIons: adVancing socioEcological systems and strategies Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 861,000 57.50% 861,000 57.50% 2 UNIVERSITE DE LAUSANNE CH 328,500 21.94% 328,500 21.94% 3 UNIVERSITAT AUTONOMA DE BARCELONA ES 308,000 20.57% 308,000 20.57% Total: 1,497,500 1,497,500 Abstract: The CO-THRIVE project aims to significantly upgrade the research and innovation capabilities and research management capacity of Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech, Estonia) in the emerging field of post-growth transitions and cosmolocal production (e.g., digital commons, open- source hardware). To this end, the project strategically pairs TalTech with two international leaders in sustainability science: the University of Lausanne (UNIL, Switzerland) and the Autonomous University of Barcelona (ICTA-UAB, Spain). The overarching objective is to establish a world-class, transdisciplinary research network led by TalTech, forming a holistic research loop and structurally enhancing the institution's success rates in competitive EU funding. To achieve this, CO-THRIVE employs a "learning-by-doing" methodology anchored by a joint exploratory research component. By analyzing open-source production ecosystems, the consortium actively transfers advanced methodologies, primarily socio-metabolic footprinting (UNIL) and spatial ethnography (ICTA-UAB), to TalTech, which integrates them into comprehensive technology governance frameworks. This joint research acts as the operational vehicle for targeted institutional upgrading. The project’s objectives are achieved through: Intensive inward and outward staff mobility to foster European knowledge circulation and specialized mentoring; A Joint Proposal Taskforce dedicated to co-creating and submitting large-scale Horizon Europe and ERC grants; Three international Summer Schools and the systematic enrichment of TalTech’s existing Master’s programs. Responding to the call's core mandate, CO-THRIVE ensures structural, long-term capacity building. It elevates a Widening institution to a position of scientific and administrative leadership, directly contributing to the EU’s goal of spreading excellence, reducing R&I disparities, and driving systemic solutions for European socio-ecological transitions. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 11.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101339604/CO-THRIVE-20/07/2026-20:33:57 1/6  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- Clear and strategically coherent objectives are presented. Objectives are largely achievable and verifiable. However, several objectives remain broad and insufficiently measurable, lacking concrete indicators and verifiable success criteria. E.g. establishing beneficiary as a leader in socio-ecological transition strategies cannot be clearly verified. Objectives are highly relevant and strongly address excellence, capacity building, and strategic collaboration with leading international partners. Project credibly supports strengthening research management capacities of the coordinator and international visibility, e.g. institutional support mechanisms. Researcher mobility and interdisciplinarity are well integrated. Mobility outcomes are insufficiently defined. --------- The proposal’s objectives are overall clear, coherent and predominantly measurable. Institutional capacities are expressed mostly in qualitative terms, capturing more complex dimensions of change, but making measurability and verifiability only partially evident, with achievability remaining somewhat generic. This is a minor shortcoming. The objectives excellently address core Twinning dimensions by establishing a long-term partnership between relevant institutions which focuses on the structured transfer of scientific, methodological, and research management excellence from leading institutions to the widening partner. --------- Objectives are generally clearly stated, though significant doubts arise regarding achievability and verifiability. The ambition to establish Estonia as a leader in socio-ecological transition strategies is unconvincing within the scope of a single institutional grant, and it remains unclear what concretely constitutes a validated community-led methodology. Alignment with several Work Programme objectives is insufficiently demonstrated: pathways to enhanced institutional reputation, staff research profiles, and strengthened research management capacities are not elaborated, with the proposal's focus on cosmolocal production systems dominating at the expense of explicit programme linkage. Overall, objectives require greater specificity and stronger alignment with programme expectations. --------- This is an excellent proposal that defines clear and relevant objectives aimed at strengthening the coordinating institution’s research capacity and research profile through research on governance and sustainability. Competencies in need of development are clearly identified and the overall objectives are focused, detailed, verifiable and appear achievable. The clear objectives are exceptionally well aligned with the Work Program, particularly in relation to improved research capacities, combining institutional strengths in research and methodology to achieve stronger strategic partnerships, and enhanced institutional reputation. Researcher mobility and knowledge exchange (individual and institutional level) are also addressed very clearly, with identified roles for all partners. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- Activities and methodology are scientifically strong, interdisciplinary, and well aligned with the project’s capacity-building and research excellence objectives. The proposal presents a credible and innovative methodological framework combining modeling, participatory action research, spatial ethnography, and governance, while ensuring structured knowledge transfer to the beneficiary. However, the operational planning, research management measures, and risk mitigation strategies are described only at a general level, e.g. limited to contingency planning (shortcoming). The proposal demonstrates alignment with Open Science principles through its focus on digital commons, open-source technologies, and participatory research approaches. However, the practical implementation of Open Science practices is insufficiently detailed, particularly regarding FAIR data management, open access publishing, data sharing procedures, and long-term accessibility of research outputs (shortcoming). --------- In well-suited work packages, research management is credibly built upon an innovative shift towards experiential co-creation, with joint research activities serving as a practical learning environment for profound institutional upgrading. Open Science is treated as a mandatory baseline, with the proposal outlining appropriate practices in a clear and reasonably well-structured manner. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures are insufficiently developed. Key activities — staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, summer schools, and outreach — are not outlined, representing a significant shortcoming. Challenges and mitigation measures are entirely absent. The proposal focuses predominantly on cosmolocal production systems and methodological contributions from leading institutions, notably EE-MRIO, Participatory Action Research, and Spatial Ethnography, which represent credible and innovative approaches advancing the state of the art; however, the gender dimension is entirely absent. Research management capacities, including the establishment of a dedicated coordination team, are significantly underdeveloped. Open Science practices are not sufficiently elaborated. Overall, while the research component demonstrates methodological strength, the coordination and support framework is noticeably incomplete. --------- A strength of the proposal is that it presents a coherent and appropriate methodology for capacity-building in research excellence. The project is built around distinct but interconnected pillars of analysis, with a well-defined and detailed plan for cooperation between the project partners. Another strength is the well- structured and approach to research management and administration (RMA) capacity-building, including training programmes with advanced partners, workshops, capacity-building visits, and concrete outputs. Both individual-level and institutional-level RMA development are convincingly addressed. The proposal demonstrates adequately integrated Open Science practices aligned with Work Programme expectations. Criterion 2 - Impact 101339604/CO-THRIVE-20/07/2026-20:33:57 2/6  Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- Results are credible and well aligned with the expected outcomes of the call, research excellence, networking, mobility, and institutional capacity building. Proposal includes relevant outputs, such as publications, datasets, summer schools and joint proposals. However, some long-term impact claims are too ambitious for the project’s scale and duration, e.g. to transform beneficiary into a world-leading hub for post-growth innovation is difficult to achieve within the timeframe and scale. Indicators are relevant and measurable, particularly regarding scientific outputs, mobility, networking, and proposal development, although indicators for long- term institutional transformation are insufficiently clear, e.g. increased institutional visibility. --------- The project credibly identifies contributing to improved excellence capacity, enhanced networking and upgrading research management and adequately describes wider impacts including target groups and benefits. The indicators cover the expected impact adequately to some extent. However, the proposal provides less of an overall picture. Where quantitative indicators are not evident, the proposal offers relevant descriptive information instead. For example, it refers to new procedures for monitoring success rates. However, the indicator intended to measure this is not well specified. This is a shortcoming. --------- Outcomes partially align with programme expectations. Improved excellence capacity is outlined with an appropriate indicator — Open Access Q1 publications. Raised institutional reputation and research profile is largely absent. Enhanced strategic networking is present but weak: 36 person-months of mobility does not convincingly demonstrate quality of strategic ties or knowledge transfer outcomes. Upgraded research management is adequately indicated through collaborative bid targets, though indicators such as researcher retention and attraction rates are not properly considered. Overall, proposal's indicators are insufficiently operationalised to ensure a convincing pathway to programme-level impacts, and omission of reputational outcomes represents a gap. --------- The proposed pathways to impact in research excellence and in research management and administration are clear, detailed and include a range of activities supported by targets and KPIs that are relevant to the expected Work Programme outcomes and impacts, which is a strength. The overall impact logic is clear, and the proposal provides high-level clarity on the scope of and link between activities, expected outcomes and the role of specific partners in achieving these. A particular strength is the explicit focus on institutional-level and long-term RE and RMA improvements. The proposed indicators are fully adequate for tracking implementation, immediate outputs, institutional transformation, sustained collaboration, and (inter) national recognition. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are well designed, coherent, and appropriately integrated into the project structure. Proposal includes credible activities such as Q1 open access publications, FAIR datasets, summer schools, follow-up Horizon Europe proposals, curriculum upgrading, and policy- oriented outreach. However, the long-term uptake and practical adoption of the proposed governance and policy toolkits are insufficiently substantiated. The proposal identifies relevant external barriers and proposes generally appropriate mitigation measures. The proposal’s IP approach is generally appropriate for an open-source project, although concrete IP management and licensing arrangements are insufficiently detailed (minor shortcoming). --------- The project leans on a methodology in which dissemination, exploitation and communication measures have a central and credible role, are suitable and have plausible potential for impact, and therewith also beyond its duration. However, this remains underdeveloped and therewith insufficiently demonstrated. External barriers are not evident; it fails to adequately address and insufficiently describes the challenges that may occur; yet mitigation measures are insufficiently demonstrated. This is a shortcoming. The proposal emphasises ethical principles and practical measures supporting community advancement, the common good, and non-extractive data practices, grounded in reciprocity, local autonomy and broader collective benefit. --------- Dissemination is relatively weak: targeting exclusively the scientific community limits reach, excluding policymakers and civil society. Exploitation is partially adequate: engagement of financial actors — despite being listed as targets — is not elaborated. Communication measures, including podcast production and grassroots engagement, are appropriate but the dissemination, exploitation, and communication plan is not sufficiently ambitious, and some key outputs such as an updated syllabus are incremental rather than impactful. External barriers and mitigation measures are a clear strength, with regulatory lock-in and GDP metric over-reliance convincingly addressed. Intellectual property management is inadequate, with no framework beyond authors retaining Open Science rights. --------- The proposal provides a clear framework for institutional change, sustainability and long-term impact, but each focusing on a different phase of the project. There is a clear roadmap to impact and effectiveness both during, but importantly also beyond the project end. The few external barriers to impact identified are well-articulated and mitigation strategies are clear and effective. A shortcoming is that the identification of external barriers is perhaps not as extensive as it could have been in quantitative terms. IP management is only briefly mentioned in relation to open access publishing. This could have been woven into the proposal better and is, therefore, a shortcoming. 101339604/CO-THRIVE-20/07/2026-20:33:57 3/6  Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- The work plan is well structured, logically phased, and aligned with the project’s logic. WPs are clearly interrelated, with WP1 providing the scientific core and the mobility, management, DEC, curriculum, and proposal-development activities feeding into or building on it. The budget and PM allocation are proportionate. However, the split into many phase-based WPs adds complexity and some inconsistencies, such as references to management tasks associated with an apparently misidentified WP. The adequacy of resources for ambitious outputs such as the target numbers for publications, months of mobility, summer schools, and HE proposals is insufficiently justified. The proposal identifies relevant implementation risks related to proposal development, community access, and mobility participation. The mitigation measures are appropriate, although some are relatively generic, e.g. advanced commitments secured (shortcoming). --------- The work plan is of excellent quality and very well aligned with the objectives, with a coherent structure of mutually reinforcing and very well-integrated work packages. Interlinkages are very clearly specified, justified, and effectively illustrated in the project’s logic and workflow figure. The sequencing, milestones and effort allocation are credible and well justified in the tables, and, although only partly, visualised in a Gantt chart. This is a minor shortcoming. Resources are appropriately distributed and consistent across tables. Critical risks are comprehensively identified, demonstrating a solid understanding of project implementation challenges. The likelihood and severity of each risk are clearly defined and justified, and the proposed mitigation measures are very well described, suitable and credible. --------- The work plan is insufficiently structured and raises several notable concerns. The inclusion of case studies framed around Strategic Networking, Mobility, and Gender Inclusion, is not clearly explained and contradicts the Gantt chart, where no empirical work is foreseen for this work package; furthermore, the scope and shape of these case studies are not properly elaborated. Resource distribution appears consistent between Part A and Part B. Risk identification is significantly underestimated: only three risks are identified, with evident risks such as sustainability of collaboration post-project and limited widening impact absent. Mitigation measures for identified risks are adequate but insufficient in scope given the narrow risk register. --------- The work plan is well structured into WPs covering R&I, capacity building in research management, networking and mobility, dissemination and project management. It adopts a two-phase approach for immediate and long-term impact. The clear organisation and assignment of roles, responsibilities and deliverables is a strength, as is the clearly articulated effectiveness of activities. Resource allocation shows a fair balance between person-months and budget shares across partners. The coordinating institution leads on all MPs (though other partners also have roles in these). This is a potential shortcoming as it may create workload imbalances. The project has only one research work package, ensuring compliance with the requirement. This WP appropriately contains the research activities, meets the budget threshold requirement, and respects the allocation rules between coordinator and partners. Risks to implementation are clearly identified and well described: a strength. Proposed measures are appropriate and provide a convincing approach to managing risks and supporting delivery. A shortcoming is that the list of identified risks is not as comprehensive as expected. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise 101339604/CO-THRIVE-20/07/2026-20:33:57 4/6  a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium clearly includes internationally leading research institutions with outstanding scientific excellence, strong Horizon Europe and ERC track records, and internationally recognised in ecological economics, post-growth research, and socio-ecological transitions. Leading institutions provide strong and well-structured scientific, methodological, research management, and proposal development support to the Widening beneficiary. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are clear, complementary, and well aligned with the project’s objectives. Consortium’s expertise, research excellence, and institutional infrastructure are highly relevant and well aligned with the allocated scientific, mobility, management, and capacity-building tasks. Industrial and commercial involvement is limited, but this is broadly justified given the project’s primarily academic, policy-oriented, and commons-based focus. --------- The consortium effectively brings together extremely relevant research institutions, complying with the project’s objectives. The leading institutions effectively support the widening beneficiary by strengthening analytical capacity, advancing institutional development, and fostering integration into European research networks through expertise and targeted mentorship in research management and methodology. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, aligned with their expertise, and appropriate for achieving the project’s objectives. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are very well aligned with the allocated tasks. Commercial involvement is not applicable. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading institutions, bringing complementary expertise in Socio-Metabolic Modelling and Post-Growth Spatial Planning, well aligned with the project's focus and providing credible mentorship to Widening beneficiary Support to Widening beneficiary is credibly framed through complementary methodological expertise. Partners' roles are broadly appropriate but one WP is inconsistently described across the proposal — framed alternately as strategic networking, case study implementation, and project management — creating confusion about responsibilities and governance. Consortium expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with allocated tasks. However, the novelty of the research is questionable: the coordinator has previously led a project and published extensively on cosmolocalism, raising legitimate doubts about whether this project genuinely develops new capacities. Industrial/commercial involvement is not applicable in policy-oriented project --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading research institutions, which is a clear strength and ensures access to high-level academic expertise. The consortium has strong overall capacity to support the widening beneficiary, each partner with distinct but complementary expertise in relation to governance and sustainability. Collaboration and support is very clearly operationalised. Each institution’s concrete contribution to implementation and capacity-building is clearly articulated. The description sets out clearly and convincingly how tasks will be delivered to ensure effective implementation. The operational clarity is one of the greatest strengths of the application, thereby ensuring success potential. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are very clearly aligned with allocated tasks and the robustness of the approach is ensured through high level detail on pathways to milestones and deliverables. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101339604/CO-THRIVE-20/07/2026-20:33:57 5/6  Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101339604/CO-THRIVE-20/07/2026-20:33:57 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T20:34:05 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101339719 Proposal acronym: CoTransform Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Reframing Collaboration for Transformative Change in Sustainability Transitions Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 627,390 41.83% 627,390 41.83% 2 NORGES TEKNISK-NATURVITENSKAPELIGE NO 436,458.75 29.10% 436,458.75 29.10% UNIVERSITET NTNU 3 SVERIGES LANTBRUKSUNIVERSITET SE 436,096.88 29.07% 436,096.88 29.07% 4 SIHTASUTUS MOTTEKODA PRAXIS EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 TARTU LINN EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total: 1,499,945.63 1,499,945.63 Abstract: Collaboration is widely seen as essential for sustainability transitions, yet practical projects face persistent challenges trying to combine participatory and sustainability objectives. While collaborative approaches are central to applied science funding schemes, they often struggle to generate transformative change at the required scale and speed. Common issues include limited ownership of sustainability goals, competing priorities, behavioural and system-level barriers. Many processes remain short-term and disconnected from governance systems, reducing their long-term impact. Existing approaches tend to focus on procedural quality of collaborative processes (e.g. inclusiveness, deliberation), but pay less attention to how collaboration contributes to behavioural and system-level transformation. This gap risks undermining the effectiveness and credibility of sustainability transitions. Universities, as key actors in applied research, can play an important role in addressing these challenges. The CoTransform TWINNING project strengthens the capacity of Tallinn University of Technology to support, research, and teach collaborative practices in sustainability transitions from a transformative change perspective. In collaboration with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, the project pursues three objectives: advancing research on the transformative impact of collaboration, enhancing practical support and research management capacities in applied science projects, and integrating challenge-based learning into teaching. By linking research, practice, and education, CoTransform contributes to more effective and transformative collaboration, supporting sustainability transitions at behavioural and systemic levels. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 11.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives 101339719/CoTransform-20/07/2026-17:05:28 1/5  a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- Objectives are clear, relevant, and achievable, with a coherent focus on strengthening beneficiary's research and institutional capacities in transformative collaboration for sustainability transitions through interdisciplinary research, collaborative practice, and challenge-based teaching. However, while the objectives are conceptually well justified and verifiable, they are insufficiently measurable due to the limited use of concrete KPIs, quantified targets, and operational indicators. Objectives are well aligned with the call through strengthening beneficiary's research excellence, institutional capacities, researcher mobility, and strategic cooperation with renowned institutions. --------- The objectives of this proposal are novel, sound and original based on underlying sustainability theory and collaboration rather than competition. The project is clearly defined and the objectives and outputs are clearly measurable, verifiable, and achievable. The proposal’s objectives are pertinent to the WP. There is soundly explained evidence of: improved research capacities and excellence among the widening beneficiaries; strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and the leading institutions; ensuring higher institutional reputation and the attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator; strengthened research management capacities for the coordinator; novel R&I collaboration approaches; and, increased multivalent consequential researcher mobility. --------- The overarching objectives are insufficiently clarified and developed. It remains unclear how the transformative impact of collaboration in sustainability transitions can be measured and verified. The objective of practically supporting collaborative practices is insufficiently elaborated. Key performance indicators are insufficiently present in excellence section. Only several Work Programme objectives are properly elaborated. Contributions of leading institutions to the coordinator's research excellence, pathways to stronger strategic ties, and mechanisms for enhanced institutional reputation are not discussed in depth. Strengthened research management capacities, R&I collaborations, and increased researcher mobility are vaguely outlined. Overall, the objectives lack the specificity required for Widening. --------- The proposal defines clear and relevant objectives aimed at strengthening the coordinating institution’s research, support, and training capacities in collaborative sustainability practices. A shortcoming is that the objectives are only partially measurable and verifiable, as limited indicators and assessment mechanisms are provided. Achievability is also not fully demonstrated due to insufficient detail on cooperation structures and implementation arrangements. The objectives are well aligned with the Work Programme, particularly in relation to improved research capacities, stronger strategic partnerships, and enhanced institutional reputation. Researcher mobility and knowledge exchange are also addressed, although the mechanisms supporting these aspects are not fully specified. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- The proposed activities and methodology are very sound and well aligned with the objectives, combining pilot research, staff exchanges, training, workshops, and collaborative capacity-building to strengthen widening beneficiary’s research excellence and institutional capacities in cooperation with partners. Challenges are very well addressed in terms of the integration of research excellence, research management, teaching, and practitioner engagement through interdisciplinary pilot projects and experiential learning approaches, supported by open science and ethical reflection measures. Open Science practices are well integrated through open- access publishing, FAIR-aligned data management, public repositories, open training materials, anonymised datasets, and a structured Data Management Plan managed by the coordinator. The proposal also demonstrates good awareness of ethical and GDPR-related challenges. --------- The proposed activities and methodology are sound and appropriate to deliver these objectives and outcomes, including imaginatively construed challenges and mitigation measures, Staff exchanges, expert visits, trainings, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, and outreaches are all featured. The research component work package comprises development and implementation of new ideas, methods and technologies which advance the current state of the art. Gender dimensions are included throughout the project. The Research Management work package will improve management capacities ay the coordinator, including establishing and upgrading a dedicated team. Open Science practices are thoroughly integrated in the proposal. --------- Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, conferences, summer schools, and outreach are insufficiently elaborated. The research component introduces some new ideas but the boundary between work belonging to this proposal and prior studies is unclear, and pilot research projects indicated as already started raise questions about their attribution. A cited co-authored publication includes no coordinator-affiliated author, which is unexplained. Self-assessment of partner competencies is inconsistent with the evidence provided, with the coordinator's strengths underrated and leading partners' credentials overstated. Research management capacities and establishment of a dedicated team are inadequately elaborated. Challenges, mitigation measures, and gender dimension are insufficiently present. Open Science practices are adequately integrated. --------- The proposal presents a coherent methodology for capacity-building in research excellence through pilot research in collaborative sustainability transition projects. A strength is the well-structured approach to research management and administration (RMA) capacity-building, including training programmes with advanced partners, workshops, capacity-building visits, and concrete outputs from pilot research. Individual-level RMA development is convincingly addressed. A shortcoming is the limited focus on institutional-level capacity-building measures. The contribution of the teaching component involving PGR students is also insufficiently specified. The proposal demonstrates adequate Open Science practices aligned with Work Programme expectations. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 3.75 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme 101339719/CoTransform-20/07/2026-17:05:28 2/5  a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- Expected results are very credible and contribute to the call outcomes through strengthening coordinator’s research excellence, institutional capacities, interdisciplinary collaboration, and strategic cooperation. They are supported by concrete KPIs on mobility, teaching integration, and joint proposals. However, several long-term impacts remain ambitious and partly dependent on external factors such as for instance practitioner adoption. Indicators are relevant and adequately cover scientific outputs, collaborations, mobility, teaching integration, practitioner engagement, and proposal development. However, indicators of institutional transformation, societal impact and structural change are insufficient. --------- The project results are innovative, rigorous and credible. They are of a sufficient scale of significance and importance to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme and sustain them into legacy and practice. The proposed quantitative and qualitative indicators are thorough and adequate for measuring the expected impacts detailed extensively in the Work Package --------- Project results are not clearly defined, and their credibility, scale, and importance in relation to Work Programme expectations are not convincingly demonstrated. Outcome and impact periods are inadequately specified weakening credibility. Key performance indicators are partially adequate but include unrealistic targets, undermining the credibility of the indicator framework. --------- The proposed pathways to impact in RE and RMA include a range of activities supported by KPIs that are relevant to the expected Work Programme outcomes and impacts, which is a strength. However, the credibility of these pathways is limited by insufficient clarity on the scope of activities and the specific roles of partners. The link between activities, expected outcomes, and long-term impacts is not clearly articulated, weakening the overall impact logic. The proposed indicators are partially adequate for tracking implementation and immediate outputs. However, they are insufficiently developed to measure higher-level impacts such as institutional transformation, sustained collaboration, and long-term recognition or influence. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are suitable, combining open-access publications, teaching integration, practitioner toolkits, and long- term networking activities coordinated by the coordinator with partners. However, several long-term exploitation pathways remain dependent on securing funding and sustained stakeholder engagement. The project identifies relevant external barriers to impact and proposes generally appropriate mitigation measures, although several remain relatively broad and dependent on continued institutional support, stakeholder engagement, and favourable policy conditions. IPR management approach is adequate, with clearly defined ownership, access rights, confidentiality, and procedures. --------- The suitability and quality of the measures for maximising expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities are suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope. The project clearly and rigorously analyses barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and the proposed mitigation measures are appropriate. Intellectual property management and protection measure are excellent.. --------- Dissemination and communication measures are insufficiently differentiated, with communication implicitly assumed to mirror dissemination rather than being specifically elaborated for distinct audiences and channels. Dissemination and exploitation measures overlap, undermining the coherence of plan. Exploitation measures for the general public are insufficiently developed, with outputs unlikely to generate sustained impact beyond the project's duration. Ten external barriers are identified and analysed. however, several mitigation measures are vague and insufficiently convincing: addressing negative shifts in public attitudes through participatory action research principles alone is unlikely to constitute an adequate response. Overall, the pathway to impact requires greater specificity and more realistic indicator setting. Notably, the growing public and practitioner backlash against sustainability is addressed solely through participatory action research principles, which is insufficient. Intellectual property management is adequate. --------- One WP provides a clear framework for impact maximisation and target groups are appropriately identified with associated KPI's. A shortcoming is that the approach is only partially convincing regarding effectiveness beyond the project end. The distinction and interaction between dissemination and multiplication are insufficiently developed. The strategy is relevant but not robust in demonstrating how long-term uptake and impact will be achieved. The analysis of external barriers to impact is a weakness. It is limited to a vaguely defined risk of negative shifts in attitudes. The understanding of external constraints is not convincing and the proposed mitigation strategies lack an analytical foundation. In contrast, IP management is a clear strength, with a well-considered approach. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339719/CoTransform-20/07/2026-17:05:28 3/5  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- Work plan is well structured, logically sequenced and coherent, with interrelated WPs that credibly integrate research excellence, management, teaching, dissemination, and collaboration. However, resource allocations and PM distributions are insufficiently justified and may create delivery risks. Proposal identifies relevant implementation risks and proposes generally appropriate mitigation measures. --------- The work plan is innovative and original, effective, well-structured, and logically timed, the work packages are clearly interrelated, with a diligent and appropriate distribution of resources, The WPs are consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal. Risks relative to implementation outcomes, outputs and legacy are clearly described, and mitigation measures are fully adequate. --------- The work plan lacks specificity throughout and raises several notable concerns. Tasks are described in vague terms without concrete examples, making it difficult to assess what will concretely be delivered — for instance, the tasks on new collaborative intervention and critical post-analysis are entirely unelaborated. The Gantt chart omits pilot studies and the role of practitioner partners, further limiting assessability of the implementation pathway. It is hence difficult to assess whether the work plan is effective, well-structured, and logically timed. Research component spans multiple work packages; budget caps not clearly shown. Risks are clearly described with reference to specific implementation contexts, and mitigation measures are adequate and proportionate to the identified risks. --------- The work plan is well structured into good number of WPs covering capacity building in research excellence and research management, pathways to impact, project management, and impact maximisation. This clear organisation and assignment of roles, responsibilities, milestones and deliverables is a strength. However, a shortcoming is that the effectiveness of how activities will lead to results is not sufficiently articulated. Resource allocation shows a noticeable imbalance between person months and budget shares across partners. This may partly reflect differing cost levels across countries, but is not explained, reducing transparency and constituting a shortcoming. Risks to implementation are clearly identified and well described, which is a strength. Proposed measures are appropriate and provide a convincing approach to managing risks and supporting delivery. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes two internationally recognised higher education institutions that credibly fulfil the role of advanced partners within the Twinning framework. Leading institutions provide strong support to the widening beneficiary through joint research, training, supervision, mobility, and research management activities. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are clear, complementary, and appropriate to the project objectives, combining expertise in transformative collaboration, sustainability, interdisciplinarity, teaching, practitioner engagement, and institutional capacity-building. Expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks, with complementary strengths. Industrial/commercial involvement is limited, but justified. --------- The consortium includes two exemplary and internationally leading research institutions. These leading institutions provide the rigorous and necessary support to a successfully implementation of the project to the Widening beneficiary. The roles and responsibilities of the partners are precisely and mutually appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives. The expertise and infrastructure of the consortium is very well aligned with the allocated tasks. Industrial and commercial involvement is included in the project and seems resolutely adequate to the exploitation of project's results. --------- It is not clearly demonstrated that the leading institutions qualify as internationally leading in the relevant field, and the evidence provided does not convincingly establish their comparative advantage over the coordinator. Support provided by leading institutions to Widening beneficiary is underdeveloped: partner expertise is listed but how it translates into concrete implementation support for the coordinator is not elaborated. Partners' roles and responsibilities are broadly appropriate, though the advisory board's specific role in the project is not defined, limiting clarity on its governance function. Consortium expertise is broadly aligned with allocated tasks, though overall clarity is limited by the lack of proposal specificity. The role of associated partners is present but insufficiently elaborated to assess their concrete contribution. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading research institutions, which is a clear strength and ensures access to high-level academic expertise. The consortium has strong overall capacity to support the widening beneficiary. However, how collaboration and support will be operationalised between partners is not sufficiently detailed, particularly regarding each institution’s concrete contribution to implementation and capacity-building. Partners’ roles and responsibilities are identified, which is a strength. However, the description remains largely high-level and does not clearly explain how support will be delivered to ensure effective implementation - a shortcoming in terms of operational clarity. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are reasonably well aligned with allocated tasks. However, implementation arrangements are not yet fully developed, limiting the robustness of the approach. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided 101339719/CoTransform-20/07/2026-17:05:28 4/5  Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101339719/CoTransform-20/07/2026-17:05:28 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T17:05:39 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Coordination and support actions Call: HORIZON-WIDERA-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-CSA Proposal number: 101339028 Proposal acronym: RarEst Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Rare eArth Research Excellence: Strategic Twinning to build a European research node for Nd-Fe-B magnet processing and circularity in Estonia Activity: Ranking N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 686,487.5 45.77% 686,487.5 45.77% 2 KEEMILISE JA BIOLOOGILISE FUUSIKA INSTITUUT EE 131,625 8.78% 131,625 8.78% 3 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAT DARMSTADT DE 367,593.75 24.51% 367,593.75 24.51% 4 THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM UK 314,290.63 20.95% 314,290.63 20.95% 5 NPM Narva OÜ EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 NPM SILMET OU EE 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total: 1,499,996.88 1,499,996.88 Abstract: Europe faces a critical vulnerability in the supply of rare-earth permanent magnets, essential for electrification technologies such as e-mobility, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing. Currently, 98% of EU demand is met through imports from China, exposing key industries to supply disruptions and price volatility. Permanent magnets are indispensable in electric motors, wind turbines, robotics, and drones; their unavailability would directly constrain Europe’s energy transition and industrial competitiveness. The establishment of the NPM Narva facility is a major step forward, but highlights a gap in regional research capacity, skills, and institutional support. RAREST aims to transform Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech) into a European competence hub in Nd–Fe–B magnet technologies by strengthening research capacity, enhancing skills, embedding competences into education, improving research management, and increasing international visibility. The project applies a Twinning approach combining knowledge transfer, institutional embedding, and validation. A joint pilot establishes hydrogen- based HDDR (Hydrogenation–Disproportionation–Desorption–Recombination) recycling and enables powder-to-device workflows, including additive manufacturing and electrical-machine demonstrators. Researchers are trained through co-supervision, 18 staff exchanges, and training schools, while education is strengthened through three graduate-level courses and internships. RAREST delivers an operational recycling platform, validated workflows, demonstrator prototypes, and durable training and management structures, strengthening TalTech’s integration into European networks and participation in Horizon Europe. The project contributes to a resilient European magnet ecosystem and reduces dependency on critical technologies. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 13.25 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339028/RarEst-20/07/2026-21:41:44 1/6  1.1. Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives a. Are the proposal’s objectives clear, measurable, verifiable, and achievable? b. Are the proposal’s objectives pertinent to those of the Work Programme? Namely: • Improved research capacities/excellence of the widening beneficiaries, • Stronger strategic ties between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions, • Higher institutional reputation and attractiveness and staff research profiles of the coordinator, • Strengthened research management capacities of the coordinator, • Novel R&I collaboration approaches, • Increased researcher mobility (in- and outwards) --------- The proposal objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable and achievable. The objectives support Work Programme targets for research and research management capacity, higher institutional reputation and attractiveness, novel collaborative R&I approaches, and increased researcher mobility. However, the proposal does not sufficiently demonstrate a clearly defined, strong strategic alliance between widening beneficiaries and leading institutions. --------- The proposal excellently defines objectives in line with the Horizon Europe (WIDERA) Twinning call. The objectives are specific, verifiable, measurable, and time- bound within the implementation period. The proposal demonstrates strong alignment with the Widening Call, presenting clearly defined objectives implemented through a double recycling loop (a short and a long cycle). The novel research and innovation collaboration approaches are highly appropriate. The potential to establish stronger strategic ties among widening beneficiaries and leading institutions is well addressed. The proposal also describes in sufficient detail the potential to enhance institutional reputation, broaden staff research profiles, strengthen research management capacities, and increase mobility. --------- The objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable and relevant to the Twinning program. Objectives address the widening coordinator’s gaps in research capacity, strategic links with leading institutions, international visibility, staff profiles, research management, novel collaboration approaches and researcher mobility. Baselines, targets and milestones are provided for the research platform, recycling workflows, demonstrator, staff exchanges, courses, internships, joint proposals, publications and institutionalised procedures. The novelty of the research component is mainly at the level of capacity transfer and integration; the proposal less clearly benchmarks which specific methods or performance gains go beyond the state of the art. --------- The proposal’s objectives are credible, clear, very succinct, measurable and verifiable, achievable and very important. The proposal’s objectives are aligned with those of the work programme. Each of the categories is strongly represented, except for researcher mobility, which is discussed in later sections of the proposal. What is a standout is the novel R&I approach of the upskilling placements into the relevant ‘engineering’ based associated partners. 1.2. Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures including soundness of methodology a. Are the proposed activities and methodology sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives, including challenges and mitigation measures? E.g.: • Staff exchanges, expert visits, training, workshops, conferences, joint summer schools, outreach etc. • Research component work package (development and implementation of new ideas, method or technologies and advances the current state of the art, gender dimension (if applicable)); • Research Management work package/task to improve the management capacities of the coordinator, including establishing/upgrading a dedicated team. b. Are Open Science practices adequately integrated, and if not, does the proposal provide an appropriate explanation as to why? --------- In general, the proposed activities are sound and appropriate to deliver the project-defined objectives. They include staff exchange visits, training, attendance and organisation of workshops, conferences, and summer schools, and outreach. The research component is very well organised as a separate work package with clear objectives, and the proposed methodology has the potential to result in important progress beyond the current state-of-the-art. However, raising research management skills mainly focuses on improving EU project acquisition and implementation and does not sufficiently address the improvement of broader research management capacities. The challenges and mitigation measures are sufficiently well elaborated. Open science practices are an integral part of the proposed methodology, and research data management is very well addressed. --------- The integration of proposed activities and methodology, such as knowledge transfer and expert visits, ensures feasibility. The planned summer schools and workshops are very well addressed and will provide practical training for staff, minimising the risk of errors when activating new infrastructure. The proposal clearly defines risks and mitigation measures. The proposal clearly demonstrates technical innovations and advances the state of the art to accelerate the digital and green transition in permanent magnet manufacturing. The proposal offers high-quality, achievable activities that are well-suited to strengthening research management capacities. The measures for knowledge and data management within open science practices and FAIR principles are integrated and highly adequate. --------- The proposed coordination and support measures are sound and appropriate to deliver the objectives. The methodology combines a focused research component with staff exchanges, training, graduate courses, industrial internships, dissemination, open-science practices and data-management measures. The advanced partners provide both scientific and non-scientific support, including technical competence transfer, proposal-development mentoring, budgeting, reporting, risk-register work, impact logic and implementation planning. A major shortcoming is that the research-management team or unit is not clearly defined in terms of staffing, permanence and institutional anchoring. Open Science is adequately integrated through FAIR data/open access, with appropriate limits for IP and industrial sensitivity. --------- The proposed methodology and activities are sound and credible to deliver the objectives. Barriers and mitigations have been analysed and discussed, including a SWOT analysis; the proposal is well constructed. Researcher mobility, personnel exchanges, structured training, graduate courses, scientific and public outreach and sustainability are well detailed. There are appropriate, dedicated research components and Research Management Work Packages in the project; the gender dimension is not applicable to the research component. The research component is of strategic importance to Europe and concerns a critical material. The RM Work Package is appropriately designed to upgrade a dedicated team. For appropriate/non-confidential data, the project will follow Open Science practices. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339028/RarEst-20/07/2026-21:41:44 2/6  2.1. Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme a. Are the project results credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme? b. Are the proposed indicators (quantitative and qualitative) adequate to measure the expected impacts (e.g. scientific output, collaborations, recognition, investments, IP)? --------- Project results are credible, of sufficient scale, and important enough to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme. The proposed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are primarily focused on measuring expected outcomes, but they fail to sufficiently capture the progress toward the strategic impacts of the Work Programme Destination. They lack indicators such as collaboration agreements with the non-academic sector, private sector investment mobilisation, IP development, institutional reform, and demographic metrics (like the number of foreign students, the number and roles of female scientists). This is a shortcoming. --------- The proposal adequately addresses a significant impact on expanding the institution by transforming it from one with limited capacities into a credible European hub for research, training, and collaboration. The proposal's expected outcomes – improved research excellence, enhanced collaboration, increased visibility, and strengthened research management capacity – are credible and anticipated over the long term. The relevance of the outcomes at the national level is unquestionable, but it is limited at the broader international and EU levels. The key performance indicators (KPIs) are underdeveloped. Although education, mobility, and publications are well quantified, KPIs for institutional governance and scientific performance are insufficiently considered. --------- The pathways to impact are credible and aligned with the Twinning program, with expected effects mainly on the widening coordinator. The proposal aims to strengthen research capacity, trained human capital, proposal capacity, scientific output, international visibility, industrial links and institutionalised practices. The proposed results are of sufficient quality, they include competence building, mobility, courses, internships, publications, joint proposals and collaboration links. A minor shortcoming is that some indicators remain output- or activity-based, such as numbers of courses, exchanges, publications or proposals, and do not always fully measure durable changes in reputation, competitiveness, or institutional performance. --------- The project results are highly credible, of high strategic importance and are of the appropriate scale to achieve the outcomes and impacts of the Work Programme not only within the grant duration but also for at least 3 years post-project. The proposed indicators are clearly described and effectively encompass the whole range of expected impacts, are sufficiently detailed and are appropriate for their measurement. 2.2. Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities a. Are dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope? b. Has the project clearly analysed the barriers to its impact that come from outside the project, and are the proposed mitigation measures appropriate? c. Is intellectual property management and protection adequate (if applicable)? --------- Dissemination, communication and exploitation measures are suitable and impactful beyond the project’s duration and scope. The barriers to the project's impact that come from outside of the project have been analysed with sufficient clarity. In general, Intellectual property management and protection are sufficiently well addressed. --------- The impact of the proposal beyond the project's duration and scope is thoroughly discussed and of high quality. Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are relevant, verifiable, and long-term. The listed barriers originating outside the project are logical but insufficiently developed, relying on a passive approach with weakly justified alternative pathways. The proposed mitigation measures are not discussed in sufficient detail. The details of intellectual property management and protection are very general and provide incomplete explanations of decision-making processes and specific protection mechanisms. --------- The dissemination, exploitation and communication measures are suitable and target academic, industrial and public audiences. Planned results include open-access publications, conference participation, stakeholder engagement, outreach, media and digital communication, as well as IP and technology-transfer support. External barriers are identified and accompanied by relevant mitigation measures. Sustainability is described through continued infrastructure use, courses, collaboration and management practices, but post-project resourcing, operational ownership and continuity are not fully evidenced. IP management is present but remains rather generic for a project involving industrial associated partners and technical demonstrators. --------- The dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures as proposed are very well thought out and consider the various important audience groups and how best to engage them. Through the proposed wide-ranging measures, including training, conferences, and workshops, the consortium aims to create a sustainable hub for its strategically important scientific/technical area. Barriers and their mitigation are included in a previous section of the proposal and are well considered, sufficiently detailed and appropriate. The consortium’s approach to IPR is well thought out and appropriate for the potential results of this project, which might well produce commercially important outputs. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.25 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101339028/RarEst-20/07/2026-21:41:44 3/6  a. Is the work plan effective, well-structured, and logically timed, work packages are interrelated, with an appropriate distribution of resources (person-months, time, budget in Lump Sum table) and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in part A of the proposal? b. Work Package on Research component: • Is the research component included in one single Work Package (there are no trainings or other activities outside that work package that could be considered research)? • Does the budget of this Research Work Package amount to max 30% of the grant? • Is minimum 50% of the Work Package allocated to the coordinator? c. Are risks relative to implementation clearly described, and are mitigation measures adequate? --------- In general, the work plan is effective, well-structured, and logically timed, with clearly interrelated Work Packages. However, certain packages are not sufficiently elaborated. Specifically, the WP on Dissemination, Communication, and Exploitation is overly focused on the first two aspects, while the exploitation is not sufficiently addressed. This is a shortcoming. Distribution of resources is appropriate and consistent across the tables in Part B and the budget table in Part A of the proposal. The risks relative to implementation are clearly described, and the mitigation measures are adequate. --------- The overall work plan includes relevant work packages, specific milestones, and deliverables, and is logically scheduled. Work packages are adequately interrelated. Resources are consistently distributed across all parts of the proposal. The Gantt chart matches the specified milestones and deliverables in all details. The low number of risks identified in the proposal contradicts the proposed progress over the state of the art in this field, underestimating the complexity of building advanced instrumentation. The description of contingency plans for both technical and administrative matters is insufficiently addressed. --------- The work plan is coherent, logically timed and supported by governance arrangements, milestones, deliverables, risk management and adequate resources. The WPs are interrelated and cover research capacity, training, research management, dissemination and project coordination. Risk management is present, but some mitigations are not very operational; for example, fallback routes for delayed commissioning or underperforming technical validation are not fully specified. --------- The proposal consists of a clearly, well-structured, logically timed and effective work plan. Resource distribution is appropriate. The resource tables in Part A, Part B and the Budget Table are consistent. The Work Packages are appropriately and clearly interrelated. The presented Critical Risks cover all the aspects of the project and are clearly described, including their mitigations. 3.2. Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium brings together the necessary expertise a. Does the consortium include two internationally leading research institutions or higher education establishments? b. Do the leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiaries the necessary support to successfully implement the project? c. Are partners’ roles and responsibilities appropriate in relation to the project’s objectives? d. Is the consortium’s expertise and infrastructure well aligned with the allocated tasks? e. Is industrial/commercial involvement adequate for exploitation of results (if applicable)? --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading universities and one research institution. The leading institutions provide to the Widening beneficiary the necessary support to successfully implement the project. The partners' roles and responsibilities are mostly appropriate in relation to the project's objectives. However, there are inconsistencies between the roles declared in the Part A administrative forms and those described in the Work Packages. For instance, as per Part A administrative forms, none of the partners and associates has a role in IPR management and TT issues. The consortium's expertise and infrastructure are well aligned with the allocated tasks. They possess the necessary complementary expertise and infrastructure to achieve the results. Industrial/commercial involvement is adequate for the exploitation of results, as, for instance, two associated industrial entities are included in the proposal as associated partners. --------- The consortium is a widening university that includes two leading international higher education institutions from outside its home country, one internationally recognised institution, and two affiliated commercial partners from the same country. The leading institutions have strong potential to provide the necessary support to Widening beneficiaries, but the high dependence on two associated partners makes the level of involvement of the leading institutions in SO implementation unclear and weakly justified. The partners’ roles and responsibilities are well addressed in relation to the project’s objectives and the partners' expertise. The consortium’s expertise is unquestionable, and the available infrastructure is well aligned with the allocated tasks. The two associated commercial partners play a critical role in implementing the proposal results, but the exploitation of results is insufficiently justified, relying on links with industry. --------- The consortium brings together the necessary expertise and includes internationally leading advanced partners supporting the widening coordinator. The advanced partners provide relevant scientific support in recycling routes, process validation, training, supervision and mobility, and also non-scientific support in proposal development, budgeting, reporting, risk management, impact logic and implementation planning. The national partner adds relevant infrastructure and characterisation capacity. Industrial associated partners provide feedstock, validation context, internships, industrial specifications and exploitation relevance. A minor shortcoming is that this industrial involvement rests on associated, non-beneficiary partners; therefore, long-term exploitation and industrial continuity partly depend on actors outside the funded consortium. --------- The consortium includes two internationally leading higher education institutions and partners and associated partners that provide coverage of the complete proposed project subject scientific/technical value chain. The leading institutions provide, within the project, all the necessary support needed to successfully implement the project aligned with the Work Programme. The partner’s roles and responsibilities are very appropriate to the project’s objectives and, with their associate partners, provide a robust support system for the coordinator. The consortium’s expertise and infrastructure are ideal and well aligned for the allocated tasks. Though not the priority for this call, the industrial/commercial involvement is more than adequate for the exploitation of results and promises to yield results in this very strategically important area. Scope of the application 101339028/RarEst-20/07/2026-21:41:44 4/6  Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding Except when explicitly allowed in the topic, any entity from a non-associated third country and International Organisations (other than IEROs) can only participate as Associated Partners in CSAs (it cannot receive funding). There is no difference between entities established in low/middle income countries and developed countries. If exceptional funding is allowed in the CSA topic, a third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments 101339028/RarEst-20/07/2026-21:41:44 5/6  This evaluation summary report contains the final scores, endorsed by the panel. The individual reports created by the evaluators were reviewed and their comments are included in this report. They are collated per sub-criterion and reflect the opinions of the four evaluators. The panel considers that any deviations between the individual evaluators is a matter of opinion rather than a misunderstanding of the proposal and the score appropriately reflects the overall quality of the proposal. 101339028/RarEst-20/07/2026-21:41:44 6/6  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T21:41:50 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HORIZON) Report - Staff Exchanges Call: HORIZON-MSCA-2026-SE-01 Type of action: HORIZON-TMA-MSCA-SE Proposal number: 101344532 Proposal acronym: INDIGO Duration (months): 48 Proposal title: International Network in wiDe band gap semIconductors for next Generation Optoelectronics Activity: ENG N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 346,390 20.00% 346,390 20.00% 2 FUNDACIO INSTITUT DE RECERCA EN ENERGIA DE ES 134,420 7.76% 134,420 7.76% CATALUNYA 3 UNIVERSITAT POLITECNICA DE CATALUNYA ES 206,800 11.94% 206,800 11.94% 4 UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO-BICOCCA IT 139,590 8.06% 139,590 8.06% 5 HELMHOLTZ-ZENTRUM BERLIN FUR MATERIALIEN DE 62,040 3.58% 62,040 3.58% UND ENERGIE GMBH 6 DANMARKS TEKNISKE UNIVERSITET DK 56,870 3.28% 56,870 3.28% 7 VALSTYBINIS MOKSLINIU TYRIMU INSTITUTAS FIZINIU LT 72,380 4.18% 72,380 4.18% IR TECHNOLOGIJOS MOKSLU CENTRAS 8 UNIVERSITATEA DE STAT DIN MOLDOVA MD 186,120 10.75% 186,120 10.75% 9 TAMPEREEN KORKEAKOULUSAATIO SR FI 51,700 2.99% 51,700 2.99% 10 NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY SG 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 11 KOREA ADVANCED INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND KR 0 0.00% 0 0.00% TECHNOLOGY 12 UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES AU 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 13 INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG ID 77,550 4.48% 77,550 4.48% 14 UNIVERSITE MOHAMMED V DE RABAT MA 180,950 10.45% 180,950 10.45% 15 INSTITUTO DE INVESTIGACIONES EN CIENCIA Y AR 165,440 9.55% 165,440 9.55% TECNOLOGIA DE MATERIALES 16 INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL MX 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 17 SUNPLUGGED - SOLARE ENERGIESYSTEME GMBH AT 25,850 1.49% 25,850 1.49% 18 WORLDSENSING SL ES 25,850 1.49% 25,850 1.49% Total: 1,731,950 1,731,950 Abstract: 101344532/INDIGO-07/07/2026-17:25:33 1/4  The EU prioritises a clean, sustainable, and energy-efficient future and have placed solar energy into a building block of the EU’s transition towards a net-zero economy. At the same time, rapid deployment of the Artificial Intelligence of Things has increased the demand for distributed, sustainable, durable and maintenance-free sensing systems. INDIGO aims at building an International, Interdisciplinary and Intersectoral Collaboration Network between 9 Academic European and Associated Countries Institutions, 7 Third Country Academic Institutions and 2 European Companies to advance and accelerate sustainable development of emerging wide band gap semiconductors for diverse flexible optoelectronics applications by leveraging the unique strengths of each partner to reinforce European industry in the field of sustainable solar power and solar fuel technologies, and self-powered optoelectronic sensor and memristor technologies. INDIGO is based on academic excellence and transparent sharing of complementary expertise of the partners in 3 key semiconductor materials technologies – chalcogenides, mixed halides and chalcohalides, and in 3 key application areas – advanced PV (indoor and tandem PV, (semi-)transparent PV), solar- to-X and self-powered electronics applications, to build beyond state-of-the-art technology innovation in these fields. The academic research is strongly supported by the industrial partners providing the knowledge framework and mindset for the path from material research, technology validation to commercial production. The key aspect of INDIGO lies in the training of research staff with the focus on early career researchers aiming at skills and competence building for their career advancement, thereby fostering a highly skilled generation of researchers, offering opportunities for improved job quality and working conditions for all the participants. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 72.00 % (Threshold: 70 /100.00) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.60 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: 50.00% ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: • Quality and pertinence of the project’s research and innovation objectives (and the extent to which they are ambitious, and go beyond the state of the art). • Soundness of the proposed approach to foster international intersectoral and interdisciplinary collaborations. • Soundness of the proposed methodology (including consideration of the gender dimension and other diversity aspects if relevant for the research project, and the quality of open science practices). • Quality of the proposed interaction between the participating organisations in light of the research and innovation objectives. The research and innovation (R&I) objectives are focused on the field of wide-gap semiconductors for optoelectronic applications, and are sufficiently outlined. However, there is insufficient information provided in the proposal to explained how the achievement of these objectives will be measured. Nevertheless, the innovative aspects of the proposal are credible, relevant, and ambitious, surpassing the state of the art. The proposal includes a wide range of disciplines that are adequately combined, from the fields of materials science, optoelectronics, PV and solar-to-X technologies, and artificial intelligence for data analysis. However, due to some partners working in nearly identical fields, the interdisciplinarity nature of the proposal is not sufficiently demonstrated. The R&I capacities of the participants are significantly enhanced through the collaboration of a broad group of partners drawn from diverse organisations, geographic regions, and thematic fields. In addition, the synergies between academic and non-academic partners are sufficiently addressed, but the non-academic partners cover only a limited subset of the proposed R&I scope. The methodology is well described and follows a structured framework. However, certain methodological challenges remain insufficiently elaborated. Nonetheless, the gender dimension is sufficiently addressed, in terms of the research content, and mandatory open science practices are well and appropriately integrated. The management of research data and results adheres to the FAIR principles. The scientific programs of the individual participating organizations are well presented, thus, credibly demonstrating the quality of the interaction among them. The networking activities are also well presented, and align with the programmatic orientation of the activities. The planned activities, local seminars, and workshops are equally relevant, and will effectively support the proposed R&I activities. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 3.40 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: 30.00% ) 101344532/INDIGO-07/07/2026-17:25:33 2/4  The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: • Developing new and lasting research collaborations, achieving transfer of knowledge between participating organisations and contributing to improving research and innovation potential at the European and global level. • Credibility of the measures to enhance the career perspectives of staff members and contribution to their skills development. • Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. • The magnitude and importance of the project’s contribution to the expected scientific, societal and economic impacts. It is expected that new, long-lasting, and largely non-overlapping research collaborations in WBG semiconductors for optoelectronic applications, will emerge from this endeavour. Knowledge transfer is also anticipates within the respective specialist fields, though the expected benefits are unevenly distributed across the participating organisations. For all topics, it is not sufficient clear how the incoming technical expertise complements the existing expertise of each individual partner, nor the specific benefits to be generated as a result of the collaboration. Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence in the proposal to indicate that there will be some improvements to the R&I potential at both the European and international level. Based on the information provided in the proposal, it is clear that the outlined activities will credibly contribute to realizing individual potential by allowing staff to acquire specialized technical skills in semiconductor synthesis and characterization. The proposal includes a comprehensive and strategic plan that specifically covers the dissemination activities, targeting various stakeholder groups, and to this end, a wide range of media is to be utilised. However, the exploitation plan is insufficiently detailed with regards to how the developed technologies will be transferred to end users. The intellectual property management strategy is adequately outlined, with partners intending to formalise this aspect within a Consortium Agreement. While the proposal has the potential to produce diverse and lasting scientific insights, the key findings are too vaguely described, leaving their contribution to strengthening Europe's position in this field, insufficiently substantiated. Similarly, significant technological contributions are foreseen through the use of novel materials, but the anticipated economic impact is insufficiently elaborated. Nevertheless, it is expected that the proposal will generate socially relevant effects, including alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 3.90 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: 20.00% ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: • Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages. • Quality, capacity and role of each participant, including hosting arrangements and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. The work plan includes highly interconnected work packages (WPs), and well-described tasks that are appropriately assigned to the research partners. The overall integration of the WPs is coherent and well-timed, with respect to the estimated duration of the proposal. The specific activities and tasks are also sufficiently aligned with the planned secondments, including their duration. However, the marginal participation of industrial partners in staff secondments is not adequately explained. The proposal includes a general risk plan, which is adequately presented. However, certain critical risks remain insufficiently identified, and the proposed mitigation measures lack comprehensiveness. The infrastructure and capacity of the participating organisations, including the hosting arrangements, are well-suited to the requirements of the proposal. The consortium is complementary and well-coordinated, incorporating the relevant and requisite expertise, including experience in open science and gender aspects of the R&I, which is clearly evident in the proposal. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No 101344532/INDIGO-07/07/2026-17:25:33 3/4  If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments Not provided 101344532/INDIGO-07/07/2026-17:25:33 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-07T17:25:38 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol.  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Innovation actions Call: HORIZON-CL5-2026-03 Type of action: HORIZON-IA Proposal number: 101338371 Proposal acronym: BALTIC-CO2-SECURE Duration (months): 48 Proposal title: Baltic CO2 Storage Evaluation and Characterisation for Ultimate Reservoir Efficiency Activity: HORIZON-CL5-2026-03-D3-29 N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 2,357,732.5 47.15% 2,357,732.5 47.15% 2 RIGAS TEHNISKA UNIVERSITATE LV 328,437.5 6.57% 328,437.5 6.57% 3 KAUNO TECHNOLOGIJOS UNIVERSITETAS LT 300,875 6.02% 300,875 6.02% 4 INSTYTUT GOSPODARKI SUROWCAMI MINERALNYMI I PL 300,600 6.01% 300,600 6.01% ENERGIA PAN 5 Gamtos tyrimų centras LT 90,625 1.81% 90,625 1.81% 6 ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI OCEANOGRAFIA E DI IT 472,000 9.44% 472,000 9.44% GEOFISICA SPERIMENTALE 7 MTU SHOGENERGY EE 341,250 6.82% 341,250 6.82% 8 ESTBRAND OU EE 246,925 4.94% 246,925 4.94% 9 BELLONA EUROPA BE 172,900 3.46% 172,900 3.46% 10 MILJOSTIFTELSEN BELLONA NO 140,530 2.81% 140,530 2.81% 11 BASRECCS rf FI 248,125 4.96% 248,125 4.96% Total: 5,000,000 5,000,000 Abstract: Baltic CO2 SECURE is a regional flagship initiative designed to unlock safe, scalable, and cost-efficient CO₂ storage capacity in Latvia and the wider Baltic Sea Region. Its mission is rooted in the SECURE approach, which prioritizes monitoring and risk mitigation to ensure long-term containment integrity and aims to unlock CO₂ storage capacity in Latvia and the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). The objectives of this project align directly with the national priorities of the BSR countries in the areas of climate change mitigation, carbon neutrality, developing CCUS technologies listed in the European Net Zero Industry Act, supporting innovation in net-zero technologies, and developing full CCUS value chains and clusters. The project has the potential to deliver measurable benefits, including supporting pre-commercial CO2 storage appraisal, speeding up site development, supporting planning for CO2 capture projects, and fostering cross-border cooperation, thereby closing the storage capacity gap in the BSR. Key activities include baseline site exploration using innovative satellite technology, seismic, and subsurface monitoring; modelling and piloting of pressure injection tests in the Cambrian Deimena Formation saline aquifer sandstones, increasing the Storage Readiness Level of Latvian structures. The project advances regulatory readiness by supporting CO₂ storage permitting in Latvia and contributing to lifting the CO₂ injection ban in Lithuania. Baltic CO₂ SECURE strengthens regional cooperation by enabling Estonia and Finland, countries without national storage capacity and Lithuania with banned CO2 injection, to access the nearest cost-efficient high-quality storage sites. Public awareness and education efforts further support societal acceptance of CCUS technologies. The consortium brings together leading CCUS researchers, NGOs, and industry partners with over 20 years of experience in major EU projects, ensuring strong scientific, technical and stakeholder engagement. 101338371/BALTIC-CO2-SECURE-17/07/2026-17:06:10 1/4  Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 11.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 2.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art. - Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. Overall, the proposal broadly addresses the criterion. In particular: - The objectives are clear and pertinent to the call. The proposal appropriately aims to carry out a storage site identification and appraisal programme including at least one injection pilot test in a deep saline aquifer. In particular, the proposal includes baseline exploration, injection modelling, pilot tests in a new well, monitoring, permit preparation for CO2 storage site exploration at industrial demo-scale, and a prefeasibility study of industrial-scale cross-border Baltic CCUS scenarios. - The proposed work is ambitious and it credibly and appreciably goes beyond the state of the art. For example, it is credible that the proposed work will substantially advance well testing and core sample analysis from the selected North Blidene and Blidene structures' saline aquifers, including innovative approaches such as drill core analysis, multi-offset Vertical Seismic Profiling (VSP) in the injection well, and integrated injection testing. Nevertheless, significant weaknesses are present, namely: - It is not credible that the proposed work will bring the core solutions to at least TRL 7 by the end of the project. In particular, the roadmap to scale up the core development (SkyGeoExploreNova) is insufficiently substantiated to credibly support a robust TRL 7 demonstration. - Some aspects of the proposed methodology are not sound. In particular, the methodology does not appropriately address the definition of the geological conditions of the site in term of risks as it is in the Directive 2009/31/EC. The proposed site does not sufficiently demonstrate, in line with existing data, that under the proposed conditions of use, there is no significant risk of leakage or damage to human health or the environment. In particular, a convincing leakage detection procedure is not appropriately considered. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme. - Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. Overall, the proposal addresses the criterion very well. In particular: - The pathway to contribute to the expected outcome of supporting pre-commercial CO2 geological storage appraisal, speeding up storage site development, supporting the planning of CO2 capture projects (and related source to store linkages), and helping close the storage capacity gap, in particular in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe, is credible. In particular, the project will credibly contribute to speeding up the development of storage site candidates within the region by providing a well-documented example of the necessary planning, engineering and transport infrastructure required for a site with significant storage capacity that other developers can follow. - The dissemination plan is suitable and of appropriate quality to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the project. It credibly targets the most relevant groups of stakeholders, such as European Commission DGs, national ministries, local landowners, and academic players, using suitable dissemination channels such as participation in conferences and events, the publication of white papers and scientific papers, participation in the annual Baltic Carbon Forum, and though meetings with national and local authorities to increase the understanding of the safety and security of CCS projects. - The communication measures are suitable to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the project. The target groups for communication (the wider public) and relevant communication channels (e.g., social media, newsletters, press releases, videos based on fieldwork) are appropriately defined, and the planned actions, including public outreach activities through local events across the Baltic Sea region, are suitable to increase the public visibility of the proposed project and its results. Nevertheless, a shortcoming is present, namely: - The exploitation plan is not appropriate. For example, the proposed plan does not sufficiently address the key exploitable results, background and foreground IP ownership or IP responsibilities, either at the consortium and individual participant level. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101338371/BALTIC-CO2-SECURE-17/07/2026-17:06:10 2/4  The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. - Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. Overall, the proposal addresses the criterion very well. In particular: - The proposed work plan is of appropriate quality and it is effective to achieve the project objectives. Work packages are well structured and there is an appropriate breakdown of work packages into appropriate tasks. - The deliverables are credible, relevant and appropriate for documenting the project results. - The milestones and the associated means of verification are credible and appropriately scheduled for monitoring the progress of the work. - The effort assigned to the work packages is appropriate and aligned with their objectives and deliverables. The allocation of resources overall is suitable and appropriately justified. - The detailed budget table is appropriate. There are no ineligible costs, no duplicated cost items, and no overestimated or underestimated cost items. Nevertheless, a shortcoming is present, namely: - Some of the critical risks are not appropriately mitigated. For example, for the risk "Delays in permits approval from the competent authorities", the proposed mitigation measure "To ensure early in-depth consultations with the national authorities on their specific requirements, and related parties (landlords and general public) and inviting them to join the stakeholder advisory board and stakeholder club" is not appropriate. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided 101338371/BALTIC-CO2-SECURE-17/07/2026-17:06:10 3/4  Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments Not provided 101338371/BALTIC-CO2-SECURE-17/07/2026-17:06:10 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-17T17:06:17 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Innovation actions Call: HORIZON-CL5-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-IA Proposal number: 101325969 Proposal acronym: SHAPED Duration (months): 42 Proposal title: Scalable Holistic Approach for Positive Energy Districts Activity: HORIZON-CL5-2026-02-D4-04 N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 600,000 12.00% 600,000 12.00% 2 RIGAS TEHNISKA UNIVERSITATE LV 444,937.5 8.90% 444,937.5 8.90% 3 KNOW CENTER RESEARCH GMBH AT 501,375 10.03% 501,375 10.03% 4 ELLINIKO MESOGEIAKO PANEPISTIMIO EL 411,250 8.23% 411,250 8.23% 5 UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY NZ 564,025.48 11.28% 564,025.48 11.28% 6 MG SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING AB SE 162,575 3.25% 162,575 3.25% 7 DSxOS OÜ EE 246,487.5 4.93% 246,487.5 4.93% 8 Pirma Energokopiena KS LV 149,187.5 2.98% 149,187.5 2.98% 9 ZALA BRIVIBA BIEDRIBA LV 210,250 4.21% 210,250 4.21% 10 SIA "Willbrook Management" LV 74,812.5 1.50% 74,812.5 1.50% 11 WEIZ FORSCHUNGS & ENTWICKLUNGS GGMBH AT 415,000 8.30% 415,000 8.30% 12 EVON GMBH AT 291,375 5.83% 291,375 5.83% 13 PINIRTZIS SIRIGONAKIS GP EL 139,562.5 2.79% 139,562.5 2.79% 14 DIACHEIRISTIS ELLINIKOU DIKTYOU DIANOMIS EL 189,000 3.78% 189,000 3.78% ELEKTRIKIS ENERGEIAS AE 15 CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL NZ 62,721.25 1.25% 62,721.25 1.25% 16 Our Energy Limited NZ 72,318.75 1.45% 72,318.75 1.45% 17 AGENCIA DE ENERGIA E AMBIENTE DA ARRABIDA PT 207,762.5 4.16% 207,762.5 4.16% 18 AUTONOOM PROVINCIEBEDRIJF KAMP C BE 257,343.75 5.15% 257,343.75 5.15% Total: 4,999,984.23 4,999,984.23 Abstract: 101325969/SHAPED-03/06/2026-17:29:40 1/4  "The energy transition is like rebuilding an airplane in mid-flight – it requires a comprehensive transformation of energy production, distribution, and use, without disrupting the constant supply".1 It also needs to be a just transition, one that leaves no one behind and is carried and shaped by all. SHAPED | Scalable Holistic Approach for Positive Energy Districts, responds to this complexity by aligning technology, governance and social innovation into a coherent, value-driven framework that enables replicable, just and resilient PED implementation. The distinctive contribution and excellence of the project is in turning Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) from isolated research and innovation pilots into distribution system operator (DSO) grid-compatible, scalable and replication-ready solutions by combining (1) real-life demonstrations in 3 pilot sites and 3 replication sites, (2) DSO-aligned data exchange pipelines, (3) digital AI-powered production-demand optimisation tools, and (4) decision-grade planning and governance instruments, in one integrated approach, disseminated through (5) hands-on guidelines, tools, trainings and capacity building workshops, and (6) interoperable, exploitation-ready solutions enabling replication and post-project uptake. This approach provides the foundation for the project’s methodology and underpins its pathways towards impact, ensuring that demonstrated PED solutions can be taken up by cities, grid operators, energy traders and communities beyond the project duration. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 10.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art. - Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. Overall, the proposal addresses the criterion well. In particular: - The objectives are clear and pertinent to the call. The proposal appropriately aims to demonstrate approaches and solutions for overcoming constraints which prevent the successful implementation of PEDs, by enabling grid-compatible, scalable, and replication-ready solutions. For example, the proposal aims to move from isolated research and innovation pilots to DSO grid-compatible. - It is credible that the proposed work will bring the core solutions to at least TRL 6 by the end of the project. - Overall, the proposed methodology is sound. Most of the underlying concepts and models, including inter-disciplinary approaches, are appropriately addressed. In particular, the methodology appropriately: - ensures the active involvement of all relevant public and private stakeholders, including citizens, through co-creation processes and community engagement activities. For example, it credibly includes co-creation workshops, participatory validation sessions, and surveys involving municipalities, DSOs, housing companies, and citizens. - contributes effectively to social sciences and humanities (SSH) disciplines and involves SSH experts, institutions as well as including relevant SSH expertise, to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities. For example, SSH expertise is used to assess stakeholder behaviour, governance models, and social acceptance throughout pilots and replication activities. Nevertheless, a number of shortcomings are present, namely: - The proposed work is not sufficiently ambitious, because the proposal focuses on the integration of existing technologies rather than the development of fundamentally new solutions. In particular, AI-based optimisation, replication toolkits, and digital twin approaches are not convincingly shown to surpass existing PED frameworks. - Some aspects of the proposed methodology are not sound. In particular, the methodology does not appropriately: - develop supportive local planning frameworks for the design and realisation of PEDs. For example, the linkage of readiness indicators and decision-support tools, and translation into actionable planning frameworks is not sufficiently justified. - demonstrate the proposed approaches, solutions, and supportive local planning frameworks in at least three districts in diverse geographical areas that implement energy efficiency measures alongside renewable energy installations, storage solutions, digital and smart technologies, and local energy communities. For example, comparability and transferability across pilots are not convincingly ensured beyond the use of archetypes. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 2.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101325969/SHAPED-03/06/2026-17:29:40 2/4  The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project. - Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. Overall, the proposal broadly addresses the criterion. In particular: - The pathway to contribute to the expected outcome of a measurable increase in inclusiveness and public acceptance of the implementation of PEDs is credible and the contributions from the project will be moderate. In particular, the project will credibly and moderately contribute to embedding stakeholder engagement and co- creation processes throughout all phases by convincingly implementing workshops, interviews and participatory assessments involving citizens, municipalities, and DSOs. - The pathway to contribute to the expected outcome of improved user-friendliness and user-awareness of guidelines, tools, and training materials targeting key professionals for overcoming the different types of barriers towards the realisation of PEDs is credible and the contributions from the project will be significant. In particular, the project will credibly and significantly contribute to targeting key professionals and enabling the transition of complex PED concepts into decision- oriented outputs such as the PED Readiness Barometer and the Replication Toolkit. - The dissemination plan is suitable and of appropriate quality to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the project. It credibly targets the most relevant groups of stakeholders, such as municipalities, DSOs, energy agencies, planners and researchers, using suitable dissemination channels such as scientific publications, conferences and engagement with European initiatives. - The communication measures are suitable to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the project. The target groups for communication (the wider public) and the relevant communication channels, including a dedicated project website that presents objectives, pilots, and results in an accessible manner, are appropriately defined, and the planned actions are suitable to increase public visibility of the proposed project and its results. - The exploitation plan is suitable and of appropriate quality to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the project. In particular, exploitable results and exploitation activities are convincingly elaborated, enabling direct uptake of solutions by municipalities, DSOs, energy communities, and service providers. The management of intellectual property rights is appropriate. Nevertheless, a significant weakness is present, namely: - The contribution to the expected outcome of an increased number of approaches and solutions enabling a net positive yearly energy balance at the district level and the export of excess renewable energy to the grid outside its geographical boundaries, with enhanced replicability on a larger scale in other positive energy districts (PEDs) in different contexts, is not credible nor significant. In particular, the proposal does not convincingly provide quantitative pilot-specific evidence that adequately demonstrates net positive energy balance and export performance. Moreover, the replication scenarios for achieving surplus renewable energy generation or export energy to the grid beyond district boundaries are not convincingly addressed. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. - Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. Overall, the proposal addresses the criterion very well. In particular: - Overall, the proposed work plan is of appropriate quality and it is effective to achieve the project objectives. Most work packages are well structured and there is an appropriate breakdown of work packages into appropriate tasks. - All critical risks are appropriately identified and suitable mitigation measures are proposed. - The effort assigned to the work packages is appropriate and aligned with their objectives and deliverables. The allocation of resources overall is suitable and appropriately justified. - The capacity of each participant is credibly demonstrated, and their role in the project is appropriately defined. All participants have a valid and complementary role. Nevertheless, a small number of shortcomings are present, namely: - Some of the proposed deliverables and milestones are insufficient to allow appropriate monitoring of the project progress. For example, some deliverables and milestones do not have appropriate checkpoints, particularly those related to training and capacity building, replication and scalability. Moreover, some milestones are not appropriately elaborated as they correspond to relatively administrative outputs and process steps, whereas key implementation milestones related to pilot testing are not sufficiently developed. - The consortium does not credibly bring together the necessary expertise to implement the proposed work in terms of the integration of digital tools, governance frameworks, and pilot execution, which limits the effectiveness of implementation. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided 101325969/SHAPED-03/06/2026-17:29:40 3/4  Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments Not provided 101325969/SHAPED-03/06/2026-17:29:40 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026.06.03 17:29:49 CEST This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally sealed. This digital signature mechanism, using a public-private key pair mechanism, uniquely binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integrity. Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic signature, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation symbol. More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders Portal. (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Research and innovation actions Call: HORIZON-CL5-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-RIA Proposal number: 101326428 Proposal acronym: UPWOOD Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Optimising refurbishment, repurpose and renovation solutions for climate-neutral buildings from engineered underused WOOD with integrated building health monitoring systems Activity: HORIZON-CL5-2026-02-D4-05 N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 787,125 19.68% 787,125 19.68% 2 KARLSRUHER INSTITUT FUER TECHNOLOGIE DE 535,575 13.39% 535,575 13.39% 3 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DELL'AQUILA IT 521,920.97 13.05% 521,920.97 13.05% 4 SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY KR 325,986.75 8.15% 325,986.75 8.15% 5 UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA PT 237,661.56 5.94% 237,661.56 5.94% 6 EIDGENOESSISCHE TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE CH 413,125 10.33% 413,125 10.33% ZUERICH 7 UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN NL 365,187.5 9.13% 365,187.5 9.13% 8 INNOVAWOOD ASBL BE 270,625 6.77% 270,625 6.77% 9 ZRS ARCHITEKTEN GESELLSCHAFT VONARCHITEKTEN DE 262,250 6.56% 262,250 6.56% MBH 10 R8 Technologies OU EE 280,125 7.00% 280,125 7.00% Total: 3,999,581.78 3,999,581.78 Abstract: 101326428/UPWOOD-03/06/2026-17:37:26 1/4  Buildings account for 30% of final energy use, 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, 65% of total material stock accumulation and 1/3 of energy-related CO₂ emissions. Construction and demolition waste represents more than 1/3 of all waste generated in the EU. UPWOOD objective is to combine new generation of wood-based structural systems and optimized technical building systems for low embodied carbon, circularity, and adaptability to enable Europe’s transition toward climate-neutral buildings. 7 specific objectives: 1) Innovative Engineered Wood Products and Structural Systems; 2) Performance Optimization of Timber-Based Building Systems; 3) Demonstration in Real- Case Applications; 4) Contribution to EU Structural Timber Standards; 5) Adaptation to Korean Structural Timber Standards; 6) Low-Carbon, Circular Construction and Carbon Accounting; 7) Policy and Business Model Recommendations. UPWOOD adopts a systematic, multi-scale, and iterative methodology that links structural and technical system development, building-level implementation in retrofitting, novel environmental assessment, and pre-normative standardization. The methodology includes 5 interlinked technical pillars, connected through shared data environments, digital modelling, and real-life testing grounds as feedback loops in 3 climate zones: Estonia, Italy and Korea. As a result of UPWOOD, we expect to have: 1) Datasets of available European and Korean underused wood for resource efficiency and circularity in buildings; 2) Implementation & validation of underused wood into circular construction concepts - repurposing, renovation and refurbishment; 3) Sensor enabled health monitoring of buildings optimized for environmental performance and durability; 4) Suggestions for the removal of trade and technology barriers between EU and Korea for reduction of carbon emissions; 5) Policy recommendations to the EU, standardization bodies, governments for the adaptive use of underused wood. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 11.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 2.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art. - Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. Overall, the proposal broadly addresses the criterion. In particular: - The objectives are clear and pertinent to the call. The proposed project appropriately aims to research optimal combination of low embodied carbon construction products, optimised technical building systems and circularity principles using underutilised and reclaimed timber resources for climate neutral, adaptable buildings. - The proposed methodology is sound. The underlying concepts and models, including interdisciplinary approaches, are appropriately addressed. In particular, the methodology appropriately: ○ develops solutions that facilitate optimal combinations of construction products and systems, that have minimal life cycle environmental impacts at the level of the building, that account for relevant aspects of performance such as structural integrity, thermal, acoustic and hygrometric durability, potential for deconstruction and preparation for reuse at end of life, as well as potential for automated or industrialised installation. For example, the project will coordinate moisture safety, indoor environmental quality, acoustics, and energy performance to balance interactions between existing structures, new timber elements, and technical systems. In addition, the proposed solutions credibly cover the design and construction phases of work. For example, the design and construction of coherent renovation solutions combining prefabricated wooden elements with functional building systems are appropriately planned. ○ develops decision-related processes and strategies for adaptive reuse of existing structures, such as repurposing buildings as opposed to demolish and rebuild, considering the whole life carbon emissions. For example, the validated technical solutions achieved, such as novel building products and building automation systems, will be translated into practically applicable pathways for the structural and energetic renovation of existing buildings. Nevertheless, significant weaknesses are present, namely: - It is not credible that the proposed work goes significantly beyond the state of the art. For example, the novelty associated with incorporating underused hardwoods, fast-growing species, and forest-damaged timber has not been sufficiently demonstrated, as fast-growing trees are currently used. The barriers to using reclaimed timber, such as quality and performance issues, have also not been sufficiently addressed. - It is not credible that the proposed work will bring the core technologies to at least TRL 4. The TRL levels both at the start of the project and at the end of the project are not sufficiently substantiated. In particular, the proposed project aims to achieve wider adoption of underutilised wood solutions through pilot buildings, which points to higher TRLs than TRL5 (e.g., TRL 6), which is not pertinent to the scope of the call topic. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101326428/UPWOOD-03/06/2026-17:37:26 2/4  The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project. - Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. Overall, the proposal addresses the criterion very well. In particular: - The pathway to contribute to the expected outcome of ‘increased integration of circular approaches for building construction and renovation works, with the aim of minimising lifecycle impacts’ is credible and the contributions from the proposed project will be significant. For example, the proposed contribution to standardisation and wood-grading frameworks will provide assurance to decision makers regarding suitability and safety of circular underused timber for structural applications. - The pathway to contribute to the expected outcome of ‘availability of more accurate benchmarks and calculations of typical buildings’ whole life carbon emissions and carbon removals, based on Level(s) framework and consistent with the life-cycle global warming potential provisions under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD)’ is credible and the contributions from the proposed project will be significant. For example, the proposed Level(s)-based benchmarks and policy guidelines for timber renovations will be available for multiple building typologies and different climatic zones, in alignment with the EPBD. - The pathway to contribute to the expected outcome of ‘measurable reduction in whole life carbon emissions and uptake of carbon removals in buildings’ is credible. For example, the proposed project convincingly considers adaptive reuse and circular design strategies in different building typologies (including industrial, residential and office buildings), and climate zones (including temperate continental, temperate mediterranean and temperate monsoonal climates), resulting in measurable reductions in whole life carbon emissions. - The dissemination plan is suitable and of appropriate quality to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the proposed project. For example, the relevant groups of stakeholders are credibly targeted, such as Built4People Partnership Innovation Clusters, New European Bauhaus, end users, industry and financial actors and policy makers, among others. The proposed project uses appropriate dissemination channels such as peer-reviewed publications, participation in international conferences, and outreach to Built4People Innovation Clusters and NEB actors to report on its results. - The communication measures are suitable to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the proposed project. The target groups for communication (the wider public) and relevant communication channels (e.g., the project website, social media, videos and press materials) are appropriately defined, and the planned actions are suitable to increase the public visibility of the proposed project and its results. - The exploitation plan is suitable and of appropriate quality to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the proposed project. In particular, exploitable results and exploitation activities are convincingly elaborated. In particular, the proposed exploitation activities, such as development of the pre-standardisation framework and policy roadmaps, are suitable. The plan for the management of intellectual property rights is also appropriate. - The proposed project credibly contributes to the objectives of the European Partnership ‘People-centric sustainable built environment’ (Built4People) and to the Built4People network of innovation clusters. It is credible that the proposed project will report on results to the Built4People partnership in support of the monitoring of its KPIs. For example, this is reflected by the planning of joint dissemination, exploitation, and communication activities. Nevertheless, a shortcoming is present, namely: - The contribution to the outcome of ‘measurable reduction in whole life carbon emissions and uptake of carbon removals in buildings’ is only moderate given that the proposed project focuses on development of timber solutions that ensure carbon storage but does not significantly ensure uptake of carbon removals. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. - Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. Overall, the proposal addresses the criterion very well. In particular: - The proposed work plan is of appropriate quality and is effective to achieve the project objectives. Work packages are well structured and there is an appropriate breakdown of work packages into appropriate tasks. - The deliverables are credible, relevant and appropriate for documenting the project results. The milestones and the associated means of verification are credible and appropriately scheduled for monitoring the progress of the work. - Overall, critical risks are appropriately identified and suitable mitigation measures are proposed. - The effort assigned to the work packages is appropriate and aligned with their objectives and deliverables. The allocation of resources overall is suitable and appropriately justified. - The capacity of each participant is credibly demonstrated and their role in the project is appropriately defined. All participants have a valid and complementary role. - The consortium as a whole convincingly brings together the necessary expertise to implement the proposed work. Nevertheless, a shortcoming is present, namely: - Some of the critical risks have not been appropriately identified and mitigated. For example, technological risks associated with the validation of materials and the commencement of the demonstration projects have not been convincingly considered. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101326428/UPWOOD-03/06/2026-17:37:26 3/4  A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments Not provided 101326428/UPWOOD-03/06/2026-17:37:26 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026.06.03 17:37:35 CEST This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally sealed. This digital signature mechanism, using a public-private key pair mechanism, uniquely binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integrity. Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic signature, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation symbol. More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders Portal. (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Research and innovation actions Call: HORIZON-CL5-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-RIA Proposal number: 101326724 Proposal acronym: UMEIA Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Development of a unified methodology and tool for EIA for offshore wind farms in the ice-covered sea. Activity: HORIZON-CL5-2026-02-D3-08 N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 1,224,881.25 25.20% 1,224,881.25 25.20% 2 MERITURVALLISUUDEN JA -LIIKENTEEN FI 850,000 17.49% 850,000 17.49% TUTKIMUSYHDISTYS RY 3 DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY CA 431,928.75 8.89% 431,928.75 8.89% 4 AALTO KORKEAKOULUSAATIO SR FI 435,898.75 8.97% 435,898.75 8.97% 5 OU UTILITAS WIND EE 97,125 2.00% 97,125 2.00% 6 UNIVERSITETET I OSLO NO 402,832.01 8.29% 402,832.01 8.29% 7 NORGES TEKNISK-NATURVITENSKAPELIGE NO 414,093.18 8.52% 414,093.18 8.52% UNIVERSITET NTNU 8 KLAIPEDOS UNIVERSITETAS LT 472,343.75 9.72% 472,343.75 9.72% 9 TRANSPORDIAMET EE 99,487.5 2.05% 99,487.5 2.05% 10 LEMMA OÜ EE 242,593.75 4.99% 242,593.75 4.99% 11 Mittetulundusühing PIANC Eesti EE 190,093.75 3.91% 190,093.75 3.91% Total: 4,861,277.69 4,861,277.69 Abstract: Offshore wind expansion into ice-covered seas is essential to meet EU climate targets, yet current Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) methodologies are not adapted to ice-specific risks. Fragmented regulatory frameworks, limited cumulative impact assessment tools, and insufficient integration of navigational safety, emergency response and environmental modelling create uncertainty, higher costs and environmental risks in the Baltic Sea region. UMEIA aims to develop and validate a unified, risk-informed Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) framework and an open-access CIA Hub tailored to offshore wind farms in ice-affected seas. The project will harmonise EIA/SEA methodologies, integrate ice-aware environmental and navigational risk models, and achieve TRL5 validation through pilot applications and end-user co-creation. UMEIA combines six methodological pillars: harmonised EIA framework development, multi-source FAIR data backbone, advanced ice–wave–noise modelling, probabilistic navigation and consequence modelling, SAR and pollution response assessment, and system-level integration into a two- module CIA Hub (EIA and SEA/MSP). The Hub integrates harmonised datasets and validated models to provide spatially explicit cumulative impact indicators. Results include the Unified CIA Framework, FAIR-compliant data products, validated risk and consequence models, SAR/PPR operability indicators, and a TRL5-validated CIA Hub. UMEIA directly addresses HORIZON-CL5-2026-02-D3-08 by improving understanding and minimisation of cumulative environmental impacts of offshore wind. It advances modelling capacity, supports harmonised monitoring and assessment at sea-basin scale, ensures FAIR data sharing via EMODnet compatibility, and develops validated mitigation and restoration strategies. UMEIA will enable more consistent and risk-informed permitting and planning of offshore wind in ice-covered seas. It is expected to reduce uncertainty and pre-dev 101326724/UMEIA-03/06/2026-17:24:01 1/4  Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 10.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art. - Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. Overall, the proposal addresses the criterion well. In particular: - The objectives are clear and pertinent to the call. The proposal appropriately aims to understand and minimise the environmental impacts of offshore wind energy by targeting aspects 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the topic text. - The proposal activities cover the Baltic sea basin. - The proposed work is ambitious, and it credibly and significantly goes beyond the state of the art. For example, it is credible that the proposal will significantly advance the development of the first unified Strategic Environmental Assessment/Environmental impact Assessment framework and a decision-support Cumulative Impact Assessment hub for ice covered seas that combines environmental, navigational, structural, and emergency-response modelling for offshore wind farms located in ice-covered seas. - Overall, the proposed methodology is sound. The underlying concepts and models, including inter-disciplinary approaches, are appropriately addressed. In particular, the methodology appropriately addresses the most evident environmental impacts of offshore wind energy systems in ice-covered areas by due consideration and analysis of underwater noise, navigation accident risks and consequences, and emergency oil‑spill response effectiveness under ice. The methodology appropriately complements with ongoing and upcoming HE projects as well as with the European Digital Twin of Ocean (European DTO) and its core infrastructure, for example with the projects funded under topics HORIZON-MISS-2023-OCEAN-01-06 (nature inclusive offshore renewables), HORIZON- MISS-2023-OCEAN-01-08 "Socio ecological models for DTO", and HORIZON-CL6-2025-02-CLIMATE-02 "Ocean climate biodiversity nexus". The proposal will appropriately contribute with validated ice-specific data products and models to that ecosystem, in particular to project SUSTAINOW, a HE project funded under topic HORIZON-CL5-2024-D3-02-08; and by committing to interoperability with the DTO core infrastructure and explicitly positioning itself as a use case for European DTO. The quality of the open science practices is appropriate. In particular, the data produced in the context of the project will be FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable) and credibly leverages existing community practices for data sharing especially those in the relevant European common data spaces and in the European Research infrastructures by appropriately specifying the details of the FAIR practices such as use of persistent identifiers, standardized metadata, open interoperable formats, controlled vocabularies, INSPIRE/EMODnet standards, and DTO compatibility as well as public repositories. The environmental monitoring data are credibly open source and will be shared with the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) and the International Energy Agency Wind Energy Systems Technology Collaboration Programme’s (IEA Wind TCP) Task on the environmental effects of wind energy, by convincingly addressing a dedicated handover plan for environmental monitoring data, metadata, value-added products, as well as the commitment for open access of the final Cumulative Impact Assessment hub and also sharing of the data with EMODnet and the IEA Wind TCP. Nevertheless, a number of shortcomings are present, namely: - Some aspects of the proposed methodology are not sound. In particular, the methodology does not appropriately develop the analysis of possible new impacts that may become particularly relevant when a high number of wind energy systems is deployed. For example, impacts related to decommissioning and removal, dynamic cables suspended in the water column, submarine geohazards affecting such cables, or the production of microplastics and other chemical stressors are not appropriately addressed. - The methodology does not appropriately address the expansion of existing studies and analysis from local to larger areas, and from site- or species specific impacts to more general ones, and the development and deployment of field monitoring activities is not appropriately developed. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 2.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101326724/UMEIA-03/06/2026-17:24:01 2/4  The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project. - Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. Overall, the proposal broadly addresses the criterion. In particular: - The pathway to contribute to the expected outcome of achieving ambitious national and regional offshore wind deployment targets with positive or minimum negative impacts on the marine and coastal environment is credible and the contributions from the project will be significant. In particular, the project will credibly and significantly contribute to the identification of low impact areas for future offshore wind development in the Baltic Sea by supporting regulators through unified Strategic Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Assessment tools with a focus on reducing navigational risks and thus also engineering and development costs. - The dissemination plan is suitable and of appropriate quality to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the project. It credibly targets the most relevant groups of stakeholders, such as end users, policy makers, technology producers and academic players, using suitable dissemination channels such as participation in conferences and events, and through the publication of scientific papers. Key performance indicators are credible and comprehensive. - Communication measures are suitable to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the project. The target groups for communication (the wider public) and relevant communication channels and digital outreach (e.g., social media, newsletters) are appropriately defined, and the planned actions are suitable to increase the public visibility of the proposed project and its results including relevant quantified targets. - The exploitation plan is suitable and of appropriate quality to maximise the expected outcomes and impacts of the project. In particular, exploitable results and exploitation activities are convincingly elaborated such as uptake pathways for the Cumulative Impact Assessment Hub, data products, models, and policy outputs by public authorities, developers, consultancies and regional actors. The management of intellectual property rights is appropriate. Nevertheless, significant weaknesses are present, namely: - The pathway to contribute to the expected outcome of improving the monitoring of cumulative environmental impacts, including on biodiversity, of offshore wind installations, with better tools and open data, in a coherent scheme with pre-existing monitoring programs of the marine environment at large scale is not credible. In particular, the project does not appropriately include a strong biodiversity and monitoring perspective, and does not convincingly demonstrate an appropriate field monitoring component at large scale, nor elaborate a coherent and deep integration with pre-existing marine environmental monitoring programmes. - The pathway to contribute to the expected outcome of deploying offshore wind energy with minimal impact on marine and coastal ecosystems, and, if possible, with net-positive ones is not credible. In particular, the proposed contribution of the Cumulative Impact Assessment Hub to moving from the current case-specific approach towards a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment, and to supporting the achievement of minimal impact or, where possible, net positive outcomes, is not appropriately developed. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. - Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. Overall, the proposal addresses the criterion very well. In particular: -The proposed work plan is of appropriate quality and it is effective to achieve the project objectives. Work packages are well structured and there is an appropriate breakdown of work packages into appropriate tasks. - The deliverables are credible, relevant and appropriate for documenting the project results. The milestones and the associated means of verification are credible and appropriately scheduled for monitoring the progress of the work. - The critical risks are appropriately identified and suitable mitigation measures are proposed. - The effort assigned to the work packages is appropriate and aligned with their objectives and deliverables. The allocation of resources overall is suitable and appropriately justified. - Overall, the detailed budget table is appropriate. There are no ineligible costs, no duplicated cost items, and no overestimated or underestimated cost items. - The capacity of each participant is credibly demonstrated, and their role in the project is appropriately defined. All participants have a valid and complementary role. - The consortium as a whole convincingly brings together the necessary expertise to implement the proposed work. Nevertheless, a shortcoming is present, namely: - The allocation of subcontracting to Partner 1 is not appropriate. In particular, the subcontracting of a core task related to the tool development for underwater noise mapping in the presence of an ice canopy, is not appropriately justified. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101326724/UMEIA-03/06/2026-17:24:01 3/4  A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments Not provided 101326724/UMEIA-03/06/2026-17:24:01 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026.06.03 17:24:09 CEST This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally sealed. This digital signature mechanism, using a public-private key pair mechanism, uniquely binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integrity. Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic signature, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation symbol. More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders Portal. (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report - Research and innovation actions Call: HORIZON-CL6-2026-02 Type of action: HORIZON-RIA Proposal number: 101342322 Proposal acronym: CosmoRural Duration (months): 48 Proposal title: Cosmolocal Production for Rural Innovation and Sustainable Competitiveness Activity: HORIZON-CL6-2026-02-COMMUNITIES-01 N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 1,514,125 27.52% 1,514,125 27.52% 2 UNIVERSIDAD DE VIGO ES 262,987.5 4.78% 262,987.5 4.78% 3 ASSOCIACAO ISCTE CONHECIMENTO E INOVACAO - PT 277,625 5.05% 277,625 5.05% CENTRO DE VALORIZACAO E TRANSFERENCIA DE TECNOLOGIAS 4 UNIVERSITA DI PISA IT 297,500 5.41% 297,500 5.41% 5 RESEARCH ORGANISATION FOR THE COMMONS AND EL 356,375 6.48% 356,375 6.48% PEER TO PEER PRACTICES 6 STICHTING DYNE. ORG NL 288,250 5.24% 288,250 5.24% 7 RAINNO IDIOTIKI KEFALAIOUCHIKI ETAIREIA EL 447,062.5 8.13% 447,062.5 8.13% 8 MIB DEVELOPPEMENT ECOLE DES PONTS BUSINESS FR 302,500 5.50% 302,500 5.50% SCHOOL 9 La Coop des Communs FR 263,572.5 4.79% 263,572.5 4.79% 10 RESEAU EUROPEEN POUR DES INITIATIVES BE 300,625 5.46% 300,625 5.46% COMMUNAUTAIRES SUR LES CHANGEMENTS CLIMATIQUES ET LE DEVELOPPEMENT DURABLE 11 CEA ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVE SERVICES CY 270,000 4.91% 270,000 4.91% 12 TEXTILMIOSTOO ISLANDS OG PEKKINGARSETUR A IS 378,125 6.87% 378,125 6.87% BLONDUOSI 13 FUNDACION MOTESCOLA ES 276,250 5.02% 276,250 5.02% 14 Centralnoevropska sluzba za prekogranicne inicijative na Balkanu RS 266,362.5 4.84% 266,362.5 4.84% Total: 5,501,360 5,501,360 Abstract: 101342322/CosmoRural-20/07/2026-16:45:06 1/5  CosmoRural introduces a novel, systemic approach to rural innovation based on the paradigm of cosmolocal production, investigated in depth under the ERC Starting Grant project COSMOLOCALISM. Cosmolocal production combines globally shared open knowledge with locally embedded production in shared physical spaces, enabling communities to develop sustainable productive and economic models through networks of cooperative relations. CosmoRural aims to consolidate, field-test, and scale the cosmolocal production model as a systemic framework for boosting sustainable competitiveness in rural areas, enabling rural communities to co-develop innovative solutions, build cooperative entrepreneurial ecosystems, and share replicable practices through trans-local networks, while monitoring and tracking their progress through a participatory sustainable competitiveness assessment framework. CosmoRural reframes sustainable competitiveness as the capacity of rural territories to generate, retain and circulate economic value while enhancing social cohesion and operating within ecological limits. This includes the development of territorially embedded innovation ecosystems that combine local production capabilities with global knowledge commons, enabling rural actors to participate in distributed value chains, reduce external dependencies, and create resilient and diversified economic opportunities. CosmoRural operationalises this paradigm through four interconnected pillars: (1) localised production and service provision, directly addressing emerging social needs; (2) open and shared knowledge systems for trans-local circulation; (3) digital and hybrid infrastructures for coordination and value tracking, leveraging a Network Resource Planning system, apt for distributed and commons-based innovation; and (4) community-based governance and cooperative entrepreneurship, supported by a participatory Monitoring, Evaluation, & Learning framework for organisational capacity building. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1: Excellence Score: 4.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art. - Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. The objectives are aligned with the scope of the topic. The proposal addresses the topic expectations comprehensively through its specific objectives. This is excellent. Objectives are clearly formulated, logically structured, verifiable and achievable within the project duration, with precisely specified Key Performance Indicator (KPI) targets and convincing verification measures. The integration of entrepreneurship, services, skills and governance within a single innovation pipeline and the explicit intervention logic from diagnosis to scaling, enhance measurability and operationalisation. This is excellent. The proposal is ambitious and goes well beyond the current state of the art by introducing and integrating several novel concepts and models which will be tested simultaneously in diverse European territories targeting a significant increase in both TRL and SRL. The ambition is consistently articulated through a single operational framework implemented via a five-stage innovation pipeline, integrating cosmolocal production, cooperative governance, participatory Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) and digital coordination infrastructures. This is excellent. Overall the methodology is clear, consistent and built on strong theoretical foundations. The logical chain between concept, model, method, empirical implementation and evidence generation is explicit and consistently maintained. The Participatory Action Research (PAR) provides the overarching research logic. The Graduate-to-Rural Matchmaking Scheme is a particularly interesting mechanism. CosmoRural pilots are all strongly characterised by the presence of innovation-oriented actors or institutions. The methodological approach credibly builds on existing results from other projects and established evaluation methodologies. Alignment with the JRC Rural Observatory and the Startup Villages Forum is planned. This is very good. However, the methodology for the territorialised, sub-national application of the Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index (GSCI) combined with a bottom-up approach is not sufficiently clear. The integrated MEL framework (OM-GSCI) is operationally complex, requiring pilot partners to maintain multiple types of logs and simultaneously monitor multiple GSCI indicators, which raises feasibility concerns about consistent and comparable data collection across the pilots. All these stand as a shortcoming. The interdisciplinary aspects of the proposed work are very well addressed. The proposal embeds interdisciplinarity in the conceptual framing, evaluation logic and technological deployment, combining SSH with engineering, digital technology and design. Each Innovation Lab acts as a space where SSH researchers, engineers and practitioners work together using Participatory Action Research cycles. This is very good. The role of SSH is well addressed. SSH disciplines act as the analytical backbone of the project with the conceptual structure drawing on political economy, commons theory, Science and Technology Studies and critical pedagogy. The treatment of SSH underpins the reconceptualisation of sustainable competitiveness as a social-ecological and institutional process and the contribution is supported by ethnographic research, institutional analysis and participatory action research. This is very good. The gender dimension is very well integrated into the research and innovation content of the proposal. Gender and inclusion considerations are convincingly embedded through targeted engagement strategies and integrated into both the research methodology and the operational phases. This is very good. Open Science practices are very well integrated into the methodology. This is very good. Criterion 2: Impact 101342322/CosmoRural-20/07/2026-16:45:06 2/5  Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme. - Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. The project results will contribute well to all three expected outcomes specified in the work programme through an integrated systemic rural innovation pipeline that directly maps activities to outcomes. The contribution of the proposal's results to the first expected outcome EO1 (understanding sustainable competitiveness) is supported by territorial diagnostics and the innovative OM-GSCI framework, which combines participatory tracking of behavioural changes with quantitative indicators and generates policy-relevant evidence. The contribution of the proposal results to the second expected outcome (access to services and business) is credibly addressed through Innovation Labs and a portfolio of validated solutions, with the work of Innovation Labs addressing critical rural service gaps (e.g. energy, food logistics). The contribution of the proposal results to the third expected outcome (entrepreneurship and skills) is credibly achieved through hybrid training programmes and the Graduate-to-Rural mechanism that ensures the transfer of talent and knowledge to rural areas. The proposal establishes interconnected phases whose results are directly traceable to the second and third expected outcomes and expected impacts specified in the work programme, reinforced by meaningful quantitative estimates and specific verification measures. This is very good. However, for the contribution to the first expected outcome - a better understanding of sustainable competitiveness - the proposal does not provide credible estimates showing how evidence generated from a limited number of pilots, implemented in highly diverse territorial contexts, will support broader conclusions across other rural areas in Europe. This is a shortcoming. The project will appropriately contribute to the long-term impacts. It aims to build cooperative resilience, make rural communities more attractive to young innovators and support the transformation towards climate neutrality. The establishment of tracking mechanisms creates a robust, verifiable evidential baseline required for long-term EU-level policy uptake. This is very good. The proposal identifies the potential barriers well. However, in some cases the planned mitigation measures are not sufficiently clear, for example concerning the community-driven innovation timelines, institutional policy constraints and fragmented rural entrepreneurial ecosystems. This is a minor shortcoming. The proposal presents an integrated communication strategy as part of its impact trajectory and identifies relevant target groups with key messages assigned to each. This is good. However, the communication activities are rather generic and are not sufficiently tailored to the specific activities of the project. Furthermore, the communication strategy does not provide sufficient details on communication channels and languages. This is a shortcoming. Dissemination and exploitation measures are designed systematically, with a clear division between scientific, technical and policy functions. The dissemination plan is very ambitious. Exploitation results are effective, framed primarily in terms of institutional and systemic uptake by rural actors, networks and public bodies with a clear methodology based on periodic reporting on Key Exploitable Results (KERs). This is very good. The IPR strategy is well-defined. Criterion 3: Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. - Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. The work plan is of high quality and appropriately structured. Work packages (WPs) are clearly differentiated by function with explicitly defined roles and interdependencies. Deliverables and milestones are well defined as means of verification for action progress. This is very good. The lump-sum budget includes adequate personnel costs and well justified subcontracting costs. Some critical implementation risks are not adequately addressed e.g. certain rural-specific temporal constraints, such as fluctuations in stakeholder availability due to seasonal workloads (agriculture, tourism) and the longer negotiation cycles required for validation and consensus-building. Moreover, some of the proposed mitigation measures are not fully convincing, e.g. mitigation measure for the risk of limited stakeholder engagement. This is a shortcoming. The Financial Support to Third Parties is a key element of CosmoRural’s scaling strategy. The relevant WPs and the dedicated annex provide sufficient detail on the procedures involved, including the preparation of documentation, transparent evaluation by independent experts and monitoring and validation of results in accordance with the MEL framework. This is good. However, the scope of the FSTP call is not fully substantiated. This is a minor shortcoming. The proposal includes a dedicated task with appropriate resources for collaboration with other projects, including those funded under the topic, and also explicitly addressing cooperation with the JRC Rural Observatory and the Startup Village Forum. This is very good. The consortium brings together the necessary expertise required for the implementation of the project. Consortium members are complementary and collectively cover the relevant value chain. This is very good. Each partner has a clearly defined, valid and functional role in the proposal. The proposal demonstrates that partners have access to the necessary facilities, digital environments and critical infrastructure required to carry out the project activities. This is very good. Scope of the application 101342322/CosmoRural-20/07/2026-16:45:06 3/5  Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments 101342322/CosmoRural-20/07/2026-16:45:06 4/5  Please provide any overall comments: Not provided 101342322/CosmoRural-20/07/2026-16:45:06 5/5  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026-07-20T16:45:13 CEST This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the document to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol. Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111