Part A and Part B

Part A is filled in online: participants and their PICs, the budget table, contact details, the abstract and keywords, declarations, and the ethics self-assessment. It is structured data, and it feeds the administrative checks: eligibility, admissibility, the classification of each participant, the arithmetic of the budget.

Part B is the document you write and upload as a PDF, and it is the part that gets scored. It follows a fixed structure (Excellence, Impact, Implementation, in that order) because the evaluators score section by section, and reorganising it to suit your argument only makes their job harder.

The two must agree. A budget table in Part A that does not match the effort described in Part B is a standard finding, and evaluators do check: person-months per work package against the money per partner is the quickest way to spot a consortium that allocated budget politically rather than by workload.

Part A is not scored, but it can lose you the evaluation outright. An ineligible participant, a missing declaration, an abstract that reveals the proposal is out of scope. Those are decided before the narrative is read by anyone.

Practical consequence: Part A is not a formality to complete on the last afternoon. It needs every partner's validated data, which needs every partner's PIC, which needs their LEAR to have granted the right roles. That chain is measured in weeks and it runs through organisations you do not control.