CALL UPDATE: FLASH EVALUATION RESULTS
Published: 16.12.2025
Deadline: 17.03.2026
Available budget: EUR 98,000,000.00
In accordance with General Annex D of the Work Programme, the evaluation of the first-stage proposals was made looking only at the criteria ‘Excellence’ and ‘Impact’. The threshold for both criteria was 4. The overall threshold (applying to the sum of the two individual scores) was set for each topic/type of action with separate call-budget-split at a level that allowed the total requested budget of proposals admitted to stage 2 be as close as possible to 3 times the available budget (and not below 2 times). The thresholds that were applied are the following:
HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-51-two-stage – “AI improved advanced manufacturing and production processes in factories (RIA) (Made in Europe and AI, Data and Robotics partnerships): 9.5 points
HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-MAT-PROD-21-two-stage – “Development of safe and sustainable alternatives to substances of concern (IA)”: 8.5 points
HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-53-two-stage - Innovative AI methods and technologies for the process industries (RIA) (Processes4Planet and AI, Data and Robotics partnerships): 9.5 points
The results of the evaluation for each topic are as follows:
HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-51-two-stage
HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-DIGITAL-EMERGING-53-two-stage
HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-MAT-PROD-21-two-stage
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls)
191
79
52
Number of inadmissible proposals
4
0
0
Number of ineligible proposals
3
1
0
Number of above-threshold proposals
33
21
17
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals
189827153.75
121314614.38
114126082.2
Number of proposals in the reserve list
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ranking distribution
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 10 and higher or equal to 9
55
31
12
Number of proposals with scores lower than 9 and higher or equal to 8
54
18
16
Summary of observer report:
The evaluation of HORIZON-CL4-2026-02-two-stage, stage 1, was carried out through a structured remote process, including expert briefings, individual evaluations, written SEP discussions, consensus preparation and remote consensus meetings. The observer reviewed a structured sample of meetings and proceedings in SEP, including proposal records, written discussion trails and consensus documentation. The overall assessment is clearly positive. The process demonstrated professionalism, transparency and procedural maturity. The observed meetings were generally well prepared and effectively facilitated, with evaluators applying the award criteria through structured discussion and with due attention to consistency, impartiality and confidentiality. Commission/Agency staff supported the process constructively and neutrally, helping discussions remain focused on the criteria and requirements, while respecting independent expert judgement. SEP provided a robust process record and supported traceability across the evaluation workflow, including written exchanges, scoring status and consensus outputs. The process appeared proportionate to the scale and complexity of the call. The observed evaluation was compliant with the applicable rules and aligned with the principles of excellence, transparency, fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, speed and efficiency. No indication was observed that would call into question the fairness of the process or the equal treatment of proposals. Practical improvement points were identified concerning operational resilience in remote evaluation work: technical readiness for remote conferencing, reliable backup channels if the main evaluation system is temporarily unavailable, role-specific expert preparedness, and systematic meeting opening procedures. Overall, the evaluation process was of high quality and provides confidence that the procedure was conducted fairly, professionally and in line with the applicable evaluation framework.
We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.
For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.
