Grant applications are scored like exams. Each section is marked against defined criteria. Assessors often have a fixed number of marks available and limited time to assign them. The strongest applications are not necessarily the ones with the most impressive projects — they are the ones that make the assessor’s job easy.
Most unsuccessful applications make one of three mistakes. Each is avoidable.
Mistake 1: Answering the question you wished they had asked
This shows up in almost every unsuccessful application. The question asks about commercialisation — how the business will generate revenue from the project — and the applicant writes about the product instead. Or the question asks about the technical challenge and gets an answer about the market opportunity.
Grant applications are not pitch decks. The structure and focus of a pitch deck are determined by what will excite an investor. The structure and focus of a grant application are determined by the criteria the funder uses to score it. These are not the same thing.
Read the scoring guidance before writing anything. If the section is worth 10 marks, make sure your response covers what those 10 marks are measuring.
Mistake 2: Claims without evidence
“We are leaders in this field.” “This is a first-of-its-kind solution.” “There is a clear market need for this product.” These phrases earn no marks by themselves. Assessors need evidence. They are reviewing applications against a standard, not simply deciding whether they believe you.
Market data, pilot results, published research, letters of support, patent analysis — the type of evidence varies depending on the scheme and the claim, but the principle is consistent: assertions without backing are a red flag.
The fix is straightforward. For every significant claim, ask: what would prove this? Then include that proof.
Mistake 3: A weak executive summary
Many schemes do not formally score the executive summary, which leads applicants to treat it as a low-priority section. That is a mistake. Assessors read it first, and it sets the framing for everything that follows.
A weak summary buries the core message under context and qualification. A strong summary states the project, the challenge it addresses, and the outcome it aims for — clearly and without filler — in three or four sentences.
The most reliable way to write a strong executive summary is to write it last, after the rest of the application is finalised. By that point, you know exactly what the project is and what you are claiming. The summary should reflect that.
If you are concerned your application is making these mistakes, the right time to find out is before you submit. A Grant Reality Check involves a structured look at your application’s key elements against funder criteria, with a written verdict on where the weaknesses are.
UKRI publishes guidance on how applications are assessed — worth reading before you start writing.
Tom Burke is the founder of GrantPal, a UK grant advisory service. He works with businesses across technology, manufacturing, and the creative industries to identify grant opportunities and improve application quality.