You read the funding announcement and immediately think of a project you care about. Then you begin stretching the wording: maybe this activity counts as a partnership, maybe that outcome fits the priority. It's worth stopping before the proposal becomes a different project on paper.
The handbook emphasizes addressing review criteria. Use the criteria to test a genuine fit and explain it clearly, without making promises the plan can't support.
Compare the purpose of the call with your purpose
Write the problem your project addresses and the purpose the sponsor states. Identify the real connection. A shared topic doesn't necessarily mean the project meets the program's intended scope or approach.
If the match depends on changing the core question, consider whether this is still the project you want and can responsibly do.
Map each criterion to evidence or a planned activity
Explain how the proposal will address the requirement and where the reviewer can find that explanation. Use the requested structure where applicable. A heading alone doesn't supply the evidence.
Mark criteria you can't yet address. Those marks may point to development work, a missing partner, or a poor fit.
Explain significance without inflating it
What specific gap or need will the project address? Who could use the result, and how? Distinguish a plausible contribution from an outcome you haven't established or can't promise.
Clarity often comes from narrowing the claim enough that the plan can support it.
Check feasibility alongside the story
Compare the tasks, team, timeline, resources, and evaluation approach. If you add an activity to meet a criterion, include the work and support it requires. Don't solve a fit problem by hiding extra obligations in an enthusiastic paragraph.
Ask a knowledgeable colleague to read the connection between the criteria and the project.
Be willing to choose another opportunity
A well-reasoned decision not to apply can preserve time for a better match. Record why the call doesn't fit and what a suitable opportunity would need to support.
Take the criterion you find hardest to address and write the proposed response in plain language. Does it describe something the project will actually do? If not, resolve the mismatch before polishing the proposal. A stronger explanation begins with a defensible plan.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 145-147.
