The key lesson from working on applications to the certification body for the research allowance (BSFZ): everything must sound like research, not like development. It reviews against the three Frascati criteria – novelty, technical risk and systematic approach. The same activity can be eligible or rejected depending on the wording.
The rule of thumb
If a sentence could just as well appear in a product data sheet or a job ad, it needs to be rephrased. Do not describe the product, but the knowledge gap, the research question and the technical risk.
Vocabulary: before → after
| Development language (avoid) | Research language (use) |
|---|---|
| “Search didn’t work” | “Retrieval methods did not reach the defined precision/recall thresholds” |
| “Built feature X” | “Hypothesis X implemented as a prototype and evaluated” |
| “Tool / product / software” | “Prototype / evaluation platform / research environment” |
| “Project failed” | “Hypothesis refuted, finding documented” |
| “We built” | “It was implemented as a prototype and evaluated” |
| “State of the art: X could not do Y” | “Market analysis [year]: systems were limited to …” |
Start with the knowledge gap
The most common mistake in field 1 is opening with the product. A better structure is problem → knowledge gap → research approaches:
- Poor: “The goal is to develop a central platform …”
- Good: “Knowledge gap: whether and how heterogeneous company data can be consolidated by an adaptive platform so that they become searchable across sources.”
Phrase risks scientifically
Only scientific-technical risks count – not “feature X didn’t work” and not economic risks. Use concrete technical terms (precision, recall, accuracy, threshold) and phrase it as: “Whether [technical question] – [result or open status]”.
Prove novelty – don’t just claim it
“Our solution is innovative” is not novelty in the sense used by the BSFZ. What is required is a verifiable proof: what was the state of the art (with year), and what exactly goes beyond it? Describe the specific technical combination and its benefit – not the market promise.
- Poor: “There was nothing comparable on the market.”
- Good: “Available methods (as of 2023) solved sub-problem A but failed under condition B; what is novel is the combination of C and D, which addresses B for the first time.”
Show a systematic approach
The third Frascati criterion is often forgotten. The BSFZ wants to see that research was carried out systematically and methodically – in research phases with hypotheses and verification steps, not in a mere list of work packages. Describe the path to insight: hypothesis → investigation → result (including a negative one) → follow-up question.
Why clean wording prevents rejections
Almost all avoidable rejections come down to product language instead of research language, vague novelty, or risks justified economically rather than technically – see the most common BSFZ rejection reasons. If a request for further information arrives, the deadline is short; that is why the initial application must already be written in research language.
This exact translation is what we handle in our full support – industry-specific, see our industry pages. In parallel, calculate your potential in the flat-rate calculator.
Frequently asked questions about wording
Why is the wording so decisive?
The BSFZ reviews against scientific criteria (Frascati Manual). A text that could just as well appear in a product data sheet or a job posting will be rejected. The same work can be eligible or not, depending on the wording.
What belongs in the “novelty” field?
A scientific market analysis with a time reference: what existed (state of the art, with year)? What was missing? What exactly is novel – that is, which technical combination delivers which benefit? Not just THAT something is novel, but WHAT.
May I describe a failed project?
Yes – failed approaches are actually strong evidence of technical risk. Frame them as a refuted hypothesis with a documented finding, not as a “bug” or product defect.