Research Proposal Development

Purpose

Turn an important research question into a reviewer-decision-ready proposal. Preserve the investigator's scientific direction and distinguish verified preliminary evidence, proposed work, assumptions, and collaborator-dependent commitments.

Route To Reference

Read references/proposal-development.md before drafting a full narrative, responding to review criteria, planning proposal figures, integrating preliminary results, or polishing a submission.

Workflow

1. Extract the solicitation's scope, eligibility, deadline, budget and duration constraints, required sections, evaluation criteria, and special requirements from primary sources.
2. Frame the need: high-value application or scientific barrier, current state, precise gap, reason it endures, and the proposed solution's testable advance.
3. Map every aim or thrust to a hypothesis, method, measurable success criterion, risk, mitigation, deliverable, and reviewer criterion.
4. Use preliminary results as evidence of feasibility, not proof of promised outcomes. Label planned partnerships, facilities, datasets, and external commitments unless confirmed.
5. Make the figure plan do work: system concept, evidence of feasibility, causal mechanism, work plan, and quantitative success metrics.

Writing Rules

Each paragraph should answer one reviewer question. Avoid generic impact claims, unexplained work packages, and a list of tasks that does not produce knowledge. Explain why the team, methodology, and timeline make the proposed advance credible.

Final Review

Check factual solicitation alignment, budget/timeline consistency, references, labels on preliminary versus proposed material, and all claimed collaborator, institutional, or facility commitments. Flag requirements that require institutional review rather than inventing compliance language.