How to Write a Strong Excellence Section
How to make the scientific case for your project in language that evaluators from all disciplines can score — and want to score highly
The Excellence section is supposed to be where you make the strongest possible scientific case for your project. In practice, it is where many proposals lose evaluators - not because the science is weak, but because the writing is inaccessible.
The problem is structural. Excellence sections are usually written by domain specialists - the researchers who know the field intimately, who have spent years in the literature, and who communicate habitually in the technical register of their discipline. They write for their peers. But their evaluators are not exclusively their peers.
Horizon Europe evaluation panels are multidisciplinary by design. A panel reviewing a proposal on precision agriculture will include soil scientists, data engineers, economists, policymakers, and industry practitioners. Some will be domain specialists. Others will be intelligent generalists with strong research backgrounds but no deep familiarity with your specific subfield. All of them will score your Excellence section.
This post addresses the central challenge of Excellence section writing: how to maintain the scientific rigour that specialist evaluators require while producing text that generalist evaluators can follow, understand, and find compelling. The goal is not to simplify your science - it is to communicate it with precision and clarity to a mixed audience.
What Evaluators Are Actually Assessing in Section 1
Before addressing how to write the Excellence section, it helps to understand what evaluators are looking for. While the evaluation form breaks Excellence into several sub-criteria, the same questions appear again and again across Horizon Europe calls.
1. Clarity and Precision of Objectives
Evaluators want to know whether your objectives are specific, measurable, and clearly stated. They should be able to understand exactly what the project aims to achieve and trace each objective through to the work plan and expected results.
A common weakness is the use of vague academic language such as "to explore", "to contribute to", or "to advance understanding". Objectives should be concrete, actionable, and measurable.
2. Quality of the Problem Statement
Evaluators need to see a clearly defined problem, understand why it matters, and recognise that a genuine gap exists.
Many proposals provide extensive background information but never explicitly state the gap they are addressing. As a result, evaluators are forced to infer the project's rationale rather than seeing it clearly articulated.
3. State-of-the-Art Positioning
Your proposal should demonstrate a strong understanding of the current landscape and explain precisely where existing approaches fall short.
A common mistake is treating the state of the art as a literature summary. Proposals often describe previous studies one after another without synthesising the findings into a clear argument that reveals the remaining gap.
4. Methodology
Evaluators assess whether your approach is scientifically sound, appropriate for the challenge, and supported by a convincing rationale.
Many proposals describe methods in detail but never explain why those methods were selected over alternative approaches. Strong proposals justify their methodological choices and acknowledge potential risks.
5. Ambition and Innovation
Evaluators want to see that the project goes beyond the current state of the art and that its level of ambition is both meaningful and credible.
Weak proposals either present incremental improvements as major breakthroughs or fail to communicate genuine innovation because it is buried beneath technical language.
6. Interdisciplinarity
Where relevant, evaluators look for genuine integration between disciplines rather than simply the presence of partners from different fields.
A frequent weakness is describing an interdisciplinary consortium without explaining how the disciplines interact within the methodology or contribute to each other's work.
Key point: The most important insight about Excellence section scoring is that evaluators cannot give you credit for something they do not understand. If a generalist evaluator cannot clearly explain your objectives, methodology, or innovation after reading the section, they are unlikely to score it highly — regardless of how impressive the science may be. Write for both specialists and generalists.
The Academic Writing Traps That Cost You Points
Academic writing has specific conventions that work well for peer-reviewed journals, where the audience is highly specialised, the review process is slow and iterative, and careful qualification helps researchers avoid overclaiming. In a Horizon Europe proposal, however, many of these conventions become liabilities rather than strengths.
Trap 1: Hedging Language
Researchers are trained to avoid making claims that cannot be fully supported by evidence. As a result, academic writing is often filled with phrases such as "may contribute to", "could potentially improve", or "it is hoped that". While appropriate in a journal article, this language creates a very different impression in a proposal.
Evaluators are not assessing completed research; they are assessing whether your team has a credible and convincing plan. Excessive hedging can make even strong ideas appear uncertain. Instead of describing what the project might achieve, focus on what the project will deliver, while remaining realistic and evidence-based.
The goal is confidence, not exaggeration.
Trap 2: Definition-Heavy Openings
Many academic papers begin with several paragraphs of background information, definitions, and theoretical context before eventually arriving at the research problem. This structure works in journals because readers are usually specialists who expect detailed context.
Proposal evaluators are different. They are reading under time pressure and often assess multiple proposals in a short period. If the core problem only becomes clear halfway through the section, you risk losing their attention before you have made your case.
Start with the problem. Explain what challenge exists, why it matters, and why current approaches are insufficient. Once the reader understands the problem, provide the supporting context.
A useful rule is simple: problem first, background second.
Trap 3: Passive Voice and Impersonal Constructions
Academic writing frequently relies on passive language such as "a methodology will be developed" or "validation will be conducted". While grammatically correct, these constructions obscure responsibility and make the text feel abstract.
Evaluators want to understand who will do what, when, and for what purpose. Clear ownership builds confidence in the consortium's ability to deliver.
Whenever possible, replace passive descriptions with active statements. Identify the responsible partner, the specific activity, and the expected outcome. This makes the proposal easier to follow and demonstrates that the work has been properly planned.
Trap 4: Unexplained Acronyms and Technical Jargon
Every discipline develops its own specialised vocabulary. Terms that seem obvious to experts may be completely unfamiliar to evaluators from other fields.
Remember that Horizon Europe evaluation panels are multidisciplinary. Not every evaluator will be a specialist in your domain, but every evaluator will contribute to the final score.
Technical terms and acronyms should therefore be explained clearly the first time they appear. After that, they can be used freely. A short explanation often takes only a few words but can significantly improve readability and accessibility.
The objective is not to simplify the science. It is to ensure that non-specialists can follow the argument well enough to appreciate its value.
Trap 5: Treating the State of the Art as a Bibliography
One of the most common weaknesses in Excellence sections is a state-of-the-art review that reads like a list of previous studies.
Proposal writers often describe what individual papers have done without explaining what those papers collectively tell us. As a result, evaluators finish the section understanding the literature but not understanding the gap.
A strong state-of-the-art section should function as an argument rather than a catalogue. It should progressively build towards a clear conclusion: despite existing advances, a specific challenge remains unresolved. That unresolved challenge is the justification for your project.
If an evaluator cannot clearly identify the gap after reading the state-of-the-art section, the section has not achieved its purpose.
Structuring the Excellence Section for a Mixed Audience
The structure of your Excellence section has a major influence on how easily evaluators can follow your argument. A well-structured section helps both specialists and generalists understand what the project is trying to achieve and why it deserves funding.
Start with the Problem
Many proposals spend too much time introducing the topic before explaining the actual problem. Evaluators should not have to search for the project's rationale.
Begin by clearly stating the specific challenge or gap your project addresses. Explain why it matters and what happens if it remains unresolved. Once the problem is established, provide the supporting background and context.
A useful test is to ask a colleague from a different discipline to read your opening paragraph. They should be able to explain what the problem is, why it matters, and why solving it is important.
Build the State of the Art Towards a Gap
The purpose of the state-of-the-art section is not to demonstrate how many papers you have read. Its purpose is to show that a genuine gap exists.
Rather than summarising study after study, build an argument. Explain what has already been achieved, where current approaches perform well, where they fall short, and what challenge remains unresolved.
By the end of the section, the reader should clearly understand why your project needs to exist.
Write Specific and Measurable Objectives
Objectives should be written as a short numbered list and should be easy for evaluators to understand and assess.
Use active verbs such as develop, validate, demonstrate, assess, or evaluate. Avoid vague phrases such as explore, investigate, or contribute to.
Each objective should contain enough detail that a reader can determine whether it has been achieved by the end of the project. If success cannot be measured, the objective is probably too vague.
Present a Justified Methodology
A strong methodology section does more than describe activities. It explains why the chosen approach is the right one.
For each major methodological component, explain:
What you will do
Why this approach was selected
What the main risks are
How those risks will be mitigated
Specialist evaluators want scientific rigour, while generalists want to see a coherent plan. A strong methodology satisfies both.
Demonstrate Interdisciplinarity
Most Horizon Europe projects involve multiple disciplines. Simply listing the disciplines represented in the consortium is not enough.
Evaluators want to see how those disciplines interact. Explain how the outputs of one discipline become inputs for another and how different expertise areas combine to achieve the project's objectives.
Interdisciplinarity should be visible in the methodology, not just in the partner list.
The Accessibility Techniques That Work
Writing accessibly does not mean reducing scientific rigour. It means making your expertise understandable to evaluators who may not share your specialist background.
Define Technical Terms Once
Whenever a technical term or acronym appears for the first time, provide a short explanation in plain language. Once defined, the term can be used normally throughout the proposal.
This small step makes a proposal significantly easier for generalist evaluators to follow.
Use Analogies Carefully
Complex mechanisms can often be explained through simple comparisons.
A well-chosen analogy helps evaluators understand how a process works before introducing the technical detail behind it. The analogy should clarify the mechanism, not oversimplify the science.
Add a "So What?" Sentence
After describing a technical method, explain why it matters.
A simple sentence linking the methodology to the project's objectives or expected users helps evaluators stay oriented and understand the practical significance of what they are reading.
Write Objectives in Plain Language First
Start with what you intend to achieve, then provide the technical detail and measurable success criteria.
This approach allows both specialist and non-specialist evaluators to understand the objective before encountering more detailed scientific information.
Consider a Glossary for Highly Technical Topics
For particularly technical proposals, a short glossary can help evaluators navigate unfamiliar terminology without interrupting the flow of the proposal.
Test Your Draft on a Non-Specialist
One of the most effective quality checks is asking someone outside your field to read the Excellence section.
If they can explain what the project does, why it matters, and what it will produce, your proposal is probably accessible enough for a multidisciplinary evaluation panel.
Maintaining Scientific Rigour While Writing Accessibly
The concern that accessibility comes at the cost of rigour is understandable but largely misplaced. The techniques described above add clarity without removing substance. However, there are specific areas where rigour must be maintained absolutely — and where the temptation to simplify can create real problems.
Do not soften your methodology to make it seem simpler
Simplifying the language used to describe a method is fine. Simplifying the method itself — omitting the validation steps, removing the statistical framework, describing a two-year pilot as a 'brief field test' — is not. Specialist evaluators will notice and will score accordingly. Write the technical specification in full; make the plain-language framing accessible around it.
Do not overclaim innovation to impress generalists
A common failure mode when writing for mixed audiences is to overclaim novelty — to present incremental improvements as transformative breakthroughs because it makes the project sound more impressive to non-specialists. Specialist evaluators will identify this immediately and will penalise it. Be precise about what is genuinely new: 'the first validated approach for real-time field-level monitoring under commercial conditions' is a strong claim if it is true; 'a revolutionary breakthrough in agricultural monitoring' is not.
Cite recent, credible literature throughout
Accessibility does not mean reducing the citation density of your state-of-the-art review. Specialist evaluators use your citation choices as a proxy for your familiarity with the field — outdated citations, gaps in key references, or an over-reliance on your own previous work signal that the team is not genuinely current. Cite recent, high-impact work from across the field, not just from your own group.
Maintain the distinction between what is known and what you will do
In academic writing, it is common to blend background and proposed work in a single narrative. In a proposal, this creates confusion for evaluators who need to understand clearly what already exists (the state of the art), what the gap is, and what your project will do. Keep these three things structurally distinct — in separate sub-sections or paragraphs — so evaluators can score each one independently.
The Excellence Section Self-Assessment Checklist
Before finalising your Excellence section, work through this checklist. Each item represents a common failure point.
Opening and problem statement
□ The first paragraph states a specific problem — not background context
□ The problem statement can be understood by a non-specialist in one reading
□ The consequence of not solving the problem is stated
□ The problem is clearly important — it has evidence behind it (data, literature, policy context)
State of the art
□ The section builds toward a gap — it is an argument, not a landscape description
□ The gap your project fills is stated explicitly — not implied
□ You have cited recent (last 3–5 years) literature from high-impact sources in your field
□ You have engaged critically with existing approaches — not just described them
□ Your own previous work is cited but does not dominate the bibliography
Objectives
□ Each objective begins with a specific active verb (develop, validate, demonstrate, assess)
□ Each objective is measurable — there is a defined success criterion
□ Objectives are written in plain language, with technical detail added parenthetically
□ Every objective maps to at least one work package in your implementation section
□ There are no more than 7–8 objectives (more signals insufficient prioritisation)
Methodology
□ Each major method is described in plain language before technical detail is added
□ Each method choice is justified — why this approach over alternatives?
□ At least three to five specific methodological risks are identified
□ Each risk has a concrete contingency plan
□ Technical acronyms are defined on first use
□ Interdisciplinary integration is demonstrated in the methodology, not just in the partner list
Overall accessibility
□ A non-specialist colleague has read the section and can explain what the project does
□ No sentence contains more than 35 words
□ No paragraph contains unexplained technical acronyms
□ Every technical paragraph has a plain-language 'so what' sentence
□ The section has been read aloud — sentences that are difficult to read aloud are difficult to understand
Final Thoughts: Rigour and Clarity Are Not in Tension
The most common objection to accessible proposal writing is that it requires compromising on scientific depth — that making something understandable to a generalist inevitably means losing the precision that specialists require. This framing is wrong.
The most rigorous scientific writing is almost always the most clear. A methodology that cannot be explained in plain language is usually a methodology that has not been fully thought through. An objective that sounds impressive in technical terms but cannot be stated measurably is usually an objective that has not been made concrete enough. Accessibility is not the enemy of rigour — it is its companion.
What accessible proposal writing requires is more work, not less. It requires drafting the plain-language version first, then adding the technical detail. It requires testing the draft with non-specialists and revising based on what they miss. It requires the discipline to use one clear sentence where a specialist might use three impressive ones.
At SublimeHub, we help research teams make exactly this translation — from excellent science to compelling, accessible proposal language that wins evaluation scores from all members of a mixed panel. If you are drafting an Excellence section and want expert review or co-writing support, we would be glad to help.
Need support writing your Excellence section?
SublimeHub helps consortia translate strong science into compelling, accessible proposal language — without losing the rigour that evaluators require.
