Munich, 12 October 2026 · Nexuswelt Group
Forty-one topics in the current work programme use a two-stage process. For a first-time applicant this is the cheapest way into the system that has ever existed – a short concept note instead of a full proposal, and in many cases an evaluation that cannot see who you are.
It also contains a trap that catches consortia every cycle. This guide covers how the process works, what blind evaluation actually requires of your writing, and why the second stage is where two-stage calls are usually lost.
How the process works
| Stage 1 | Stage 2 | |
| What you submit | A short proposal – a concept rather than a full submission | The full proposal against the standard template |
| What is evaluated | Excellence and Impact only | Excellence, Impact and Implementation |
| Who can see your identity | In many topics, nobody – submissions are anonymised | Evaluators see the consortium as normal |
| Effort required | A fraction of a full proposal | The full exercise |
| Outcome | An invitation to submit at stage 2, or a rejection | Funding decision |
| Timing | Evaluation is faster than for single-stage calls | A compressed window between invitation and deadline |
The economics are what make this worth understanding. A single-stage call demands a complete, polished proposal before anyone tells you whether the idea is competitive. A two-stage call gives you that signal for a small fraction of the effort.
What blind evaluation actually means
In blind or anonymised first-stage evaluation, the identity of the applicants and the consortium is not visible to the experts assessing the proposal. The intention is to reduce bias toward familiar names and institutions.
What has to come out of the text
This is more work than it sounds, and getting it wrong risks the submission being treated as non-compliant.
- Organisation names, including in references to your own prior projects and publications.
- Personal names, including principal investigators.
- Logos, letterheads, addresses and document metadata.
- Descriptions so specific to one facility or dataset that they identify the holder in a small field.
- Self-citation phrased in a way that reveals authorship – “our earlier work in project X” rather than a neutral third-person reference.
Check the file properties as well as the text. Author metadata in a PDF is the most common way an otherwise careful anonymisation fails.
What it changes about the writing
Removing identity removes a crutch. A proposal that would normally lean on institutional reputation or a well-known name has to make the case on the idea alone, and the difference is visible.
- The concept has to be legible without context. An evaluator cannot infer capability from the letterhead, so the logic of the approach has to carry the whole argument.
- Capability is described rather than asserted. “A partner with an accredited testing facility of this type” replaces the institution’s name and does the same work.
- Impact still has to be specific. Anonymity does not lower the bar on naming the users and the pathway – it removes the possibility of implying that a famous institution will handle it.
For an organisation without a long EU track record, this is a genuine advantage rather than a hurdle. It is the one point in the process where a newcomer and an established institute are read on the same terms.
Why only Excellence and Impact at stage 1
Implementation is not assessed at the first stage, which follows logically – a short concept note cannot carry a work plan, a budget and a risk register.
The practical consequence is a shift in weighting. In a single-stage call, three criteria share the score; at stage 1 of a two-stage call, Impact carries roughly half of it. A consortium that treats the impact argument as something to develop later is competing on one criterion when it should be competing on two.The impact section therefore deserves attention from the beginning.
The compressed interval: where two-stage calls are lost
This is the trap. The 2026–2027 work programme shortened first-stage evaluation and reduced the interval between the stage 1 result and the stage 2 deadline.
The failure pattern is consistent. A small group writes a strong concept note, treats it as a lottery ticket, and does nothing further while waiting. The invitation arrives, and they then have a compressed window in which to assemble a full consortium, negotiate roles and budget shares, and write a complete proposal – work that normally takes months.This makes building the consortium before the second-stage invitation particularly important.
What the successful consortia do instead:
- Identify and approach the core partners before submitting at stage 1, not after.
- Agree the outline work package structure while waiting, even informally.
- Start the budget conversation early, since partner rates and co-financing positions take time to establish.Early budget preparation helps avoid delays at Stage 2.
- Draft the implementation section during the waiting period, since it is the part not yet written and the one stage 2 adds.
- Treat a stage 1 rejection as having cost a concept note rather than a quarter.
Preparing in parallel costs little if the invitation does not come, and it is the difference between a comfortable stage 2 and a rushed one.
Who benefits most
| Situation | Why two-stage helps |
| No EU track record | Blind evaluation removes the reputational disadvantage at the point where the field is widest |
| A strong idea, limited proposal-writing capacity | The stage 1 investment is small enough to attempt without committing a quarter of senior time |
| Uncertain whether the concept fits the topic | You receive a signal from expert evaluators for a fraction of the usual cost |
| A consortium that is forming but not complete | You can test the concept while continuing to build the team – provided you actually continue building |
| An organisation in an associated or Widening country | Anonymity neutralises geographic familiarity effects at stage 1 |
First-time applicants should also understand the available routes for newcomers.
Common mistakes
- Incomplete anonymisation, particularly in file metadata and self-citations.
- Treating stage 1 as a summary of a full proposal. It is a concept, and it should read as one – a compressed full proposal loses the clarity that short formats reward.
- Under-investing in Impact at stage 1, when it carries half the score.
- Waiting passively for the result and then discovering the second-stage window.
- Changing the consortium substantially between stages without a clear rationale. Continuity between what was proposed and what is delivered matters.
- Assuming an invitation to stage 2 means selection. It means the concept passed; the full proposal is a separate competition.
- Skipping two-stage topics because the process looks unfamiliar, when they are usually the most accessible topics in the programme.
A note on the odds
Two-stage calls do not make funding easy – the overall programme runs at roughly 14 to 16% and is falling, and popular topics run far below that. What two-stage changes is the cost of finding out. Attempting a topic you would otherwise have skipped is rational when the entry price is a concept note, and topic selection remains the largest single lever on your odds regardless of the process. Read more about topic selection and success rates.
How Nexuswelt works on this
The decisions that determine a two-stage outcome are made before stage 1 is submitted – which topic, what concept, and whether the consortium work continues during the wait. Nexuswelt works with organisations on positioning, consortium building and the impact logic that carries half the first-stage score, and contributes to funded projects as a partner for communication, dissemination and exploitation. The wider account of what changed in the current work programme is in our guide to the Horizon Europe 2026–27 changes, and more on the firm is on the Nexuswelt about page.
Frequently asked questions
What is a two-stage call in Horizon Europe?
A call where applicants first submit a short proposal setting out the concept. If it is successful, they are invited to submit a full proposal at a second stage. Forty-one topics in the 2026–2027 work programme use this process, and it substantially reduces the cost of attempting a topic.
What is blind evaluation in Horizon Europe?
Anonymised assessment in which the identity of the applicants and the consortium is not visible to the evaluators. It is used in many first-stage evaluations and is intended to reduce bias toward familiar names and institutions, which means the concept has to stand on its own merits.
What has to be anonymised in a first-stage proposal?
Organisation and personal names, logos, letterheads and addresses, document metadata, self-citations phrased to reveal authorship, and descriptions so specific to one facility or dataset that they identify the holder. File properties should be checked as well as the text – author metadata in a PDF is the most common anonymisation failure.
What is evaluated at stage one?
Excellence and Impact only. Implementation is assessed at the second stage, since a short concept note cannot carry a work plan, budget and risk register. The practical effect is that Impact carries roughly half the first-stage score.
How long is the gap between stage one and stage two?
The 2026–2027 work programme shortened first-stage evaluation and reduced the interval before the second-stage deadline. The window is compressed enough that consortia which wait passively for the result then face months of consortium and proposal work in a much shorter period.
Should I build the consortium before or after stage one?
Before, and continue during the wait. The most common failure in two-stage calls is treating stage one as a lottery ticket, doing nothing while waiting, and then attempting to assemble a consortium, negotiate budgets and write a full proposal in a compressed window.
Does an invitation to stage two mean I will be funded?
No. It means the concept passed the first assessment. The full proposal is evaluated against all three criteria in a separate competition, and consortia are rejected at stage two.
Are two-stage calls easier to win?
They do not change the underlying competition, which runs at roughly 14 to 16% across the programme and lower in popular areas. What they change is the cost of finding out, which makes it rational to attempt topics you would otherwise skip. Topic selection remains the largest lever on your odds.
