Bearings BetaFunding & opportunities · North West UKGet email alerts

Guides › Start here

Real winning applications, decks and bids, and why they won

A library of real funded proposals, Innovate UK openers, investor decks, scored tenders and arts awards, each with who, when, how much and the published reason it won.

FoundersSMEsResearchersCharities and social enterprises29 min readChecked 18 October 2026
On this page
  1. How to read a winner
  2. The library
    1. Research proposals you can read in full
    2. Innovate UK and other UK grant winners
    3. Investor decks and raises
    4. Tenders and bids
    5. Arts, heritage and community
    6. Official templates and "what good looks like"
  3. Weak versus strong, from real documents
    1. Warwick's paired answers
    2. Public descriptions: thin against strong
    3. Rejected, then funded: what changed
  4. What we could not get, and where to find more
  5. Checklist: read three winners before you write
  6. Questions
    1. Where can I read real winning grant applications?
    2. Does Innovate UK publish successful applications?
    3. Can I see the winning bid for a council tender?
    4. Are the famous Monzo and Revolut pitch decks real?
    5. Is it allowed to copy a winning application?
    6. What do winning applications have in common?
    7. Should I resubmit a rejected application?
  7. Sources

Real applications, decks and bids that won, with who, when, how much and why, so you can read three winners before you write a word. Every row links to the source. Where nobody published the reason, the row says so and shows what the text does against the funder's own criteria.

  • Funders do not publish annotated winning answers. What you can read is published proposals, public project descriptions, case studies, council evaluation reports and investors' and founders' own accounts.
  • Only a few winners come with a reason in the decider's words: Liverpool City Council's tender evaluation, Reid Hoffman's notes on LinkedIn's pitch, Paul Graham on Airbnb, a defence lab's trial of 11 cleaning systems, GrantTree's report of a Manchester bid scoring 8 or more on every answer.
  • The winners make the same moves: the need with a number in the first sentence, the criteria answered in order, evidence instead of adjectives, a concrete deliverable.
  • The best teachers are pairs: a proposal rejected one year and funded the next, and a council's weak and good answers side by side.
  • In Liverpool's October 2026 tender the cheapest bidder finished third. Social value decided it.

How to read a winner

Read for four things, in this order.

Reading a winner
  1. The first sentenceis there a number, and a source?
  2. The criteriaanswered in the funder's order?
  3. The evidencefigures, names and partners, not adjectives
  4. The reasonthe decider's own words, if published
  1. The problem, with a number, in the first sentence. "Heart failure is the biggest cause of death in the UK and accounts for 60,000 annual UK deaths and a healthcare cost of £4.3bn per year" opens a £1.4m NIHR award36. Count how many sentences pass before the technology appears.
  2. The criteria answered in order. Lay the funder's questions or scoring bands beside the text and tick them off. Innovate UK's top band for need asks for a gap that is "crisp, specified and evidenced"81.
  3. Evidence, not adjectives. Mark every claim with a source, a figure or a named partner. Strike every "innovative", "unique" and "world's first" that has none.
  4. The published reason, if there is one. An evaluation report, an assessor's score, an investor's post or a founder's account outranks anything you infer.

What exists, and what it cannot tell you

No funder publishes scored answers with the assessor's notes. Innovate UK's public description sits in a section of the form that "is not scored"80, so a thin description can hide strong scored answers.

Source What you get What it cannot tell you
Full proposals researchers publish (ERC, Marie Curie, a few UK councils) The whole text, occasionally the evaluation report Mostly European; almost nothing from UKRI
Public project descriptions (Gateway to Research, the UKRI dataset, NIHR open data) The applicant's own summary, the funder, the amount The scored answers
Funder and consultancy case studies Outcomes, sometimes scores They pick their successes
Council evaluation reports Weights, every bidder's scores, the evaluator's comment Bidders' names and answers
Investor and founder posts The reasons, in their words Written after the event, by the winner

The library

Research proposals you can read in full

What it is Who, when, how much Why it won (evidence) Lesson
FreeCo: funded proposal, the rejected 2009 version and both evaluation reports1 Sylvain Deville, ERC Starting Grant; submitted 2010, funded 2011, ran 2012 to 2017; amount not on the record Author's account: same core idea resubmitted a year after the panel's feedback, scored "8.0/8". The ERC reports are posted but we could not download them Reject to top score in one cycle happens. Read the feedback pair yourself
Rejected BBSRC case re-cut for NERC23 Casey Bergman: BBSRC responsive mode 2007, not funded; NERC New Investigator, January 2008, awarded; BBSRC Tools and Resources 2008 with Goran Nenadic, awarded Author's note: "Refactoring of previously unsuccessful BBSRC application ... Awarded." A rejected case may fit another council's scheme better
CHILDCARE STRATEGIES, B1 and B24 Thomas Emery, Erasmus University Rotterdam, ERC Starting Grant 2021, panel SH7 No reason published. The text opens on a measurable gap: "Parents from low-income households are 50% less likely to use formal childcare services than high-income households" One number states the ground-breaking case
ALiEN, Part B15 Marco Baroni, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, ERC Advanced Grant 2020, 60 months (the FFG list mislabels it) No reason published. The one-page summary runs problem, idea, three stages of experiments, use case: ERC's ground-breaking, ambition and feasibility tests in that order Copy the shape of the 300-word summary
BUMP, Part B16 Elisabeth Kingma, University of Southampton, ERC Starting Grant 2015, philosophy No reason published The UK-hosted entry on the FFG list; ERC is not only for labs
preQFT: B1, B2 and the interview slides7 John Joseph Carrasco, ERC Starting Grant 2014; asked €1.5m (9 postdoc years), received €1.3m (7) No reason published; the record adds the interview deck and the trim Read the slides as well as the text; panels cut budgets
PATHOCOM, public version8 Detlef Weigel, Fabrice Roux, Joy Bergelson, ERC Synergy 2020 No reason published The only multi-lead example found
Marie Curie fellowships: FRAXIFAM9, Missa10, TimeAdapt11 Endymion Cooper (submitted 2014, started 1 July 2015); Olivier Missa (FP7, granted 2014); Miguel de Navascués (2017) No reasons published; full Part B texts posted "in the hope it may be useful to other researchers" (Missa) Three versions of one format to compare
LJMU fellowships NextSAC12 and IMRA4CE13 (public summaries) Liverpool John Moores University, MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2024 call, €276,187.92 each, 2025 to 2027 No reason published (evaluation reports go to applicants only). The objective leads with the person: "The NextSAC project aims to train Dr. Yuanyuan Li as a leading researcher" MSCA rewards the researcher's development; lead with it

More: the FFG keeps a list of ERC proposals published by their authors14, and says it includes "some unsuccessful proposals". Check each one's status before you copy it.

Innovate UK and other UK grant winners

The North West rows quote the applicant's public description from Gateway to Research or the UKRI dataset, which carries the caveat that projects "are subject to grant offer and conditions being met"18.

What it is Who, when, how much Why it won (evidence) Lesson
Wilbo's Blends, real-food tube feed19 Manchester; Better Food for All collaborative R&D; lead grant £183,256 in a £279,608 project; 2023 to 2026 Consultancy case study: GrantTree reports every answer scored at least 8 out of 10; the co-founder: "It made a massive difference to how we structured and wrote our bid"20. Its "over £300,000" does not match the dataset Restructure from the assessor's side. Opens with the population (">70,000 people in the UK"), then the NHS cost ("more than £200million/year")
QV Bioelectronics, GRACE brain implant21 Cheshire East; Biomedical Catalyst 2024; £1,258,770 of £1,798,243; 2025 to 2028. Plus NIHR i4i £1,206,498 from January 202622 No reason published. Opens in plain words: "QV Bioelectronics, a company in Manchester, is making a new medical device to treat brain cancer." Plain English first; a second funder backing the same device is evidence in itself
GT Green Technologies, AirWing23 Birkenhead; Clean Maritime Demonstration Round 4; lead grant £1,928,414, project £2,627,104 with Carisbrooke Shipping and the University of Bristol; 2024 to 2025 No reason published. A quantified benefit, "reducing carbon emissions and fuel costs by 10-30% for retrofits and up to 50% for new build vessels", and a ship operator in the consortium Give the benefit as a range; put the end user in the bid
Ainostics, dementia biomarker24 Manchester; SBRI Dementia Mission phase 3 (a 100%-funded contract); £1,194,552; 2024 to 2026 No reason published. Need before technology: "Around a third of people living with dementia have not received a diagnosis" Quantify the unmet need before you name the product
LiNa Energy, pilot battery line25 Lancaster; Investor Partnerships SME round 3; £815,442 of £1,812,094; 2024 to 2025 No reason published. Baselines and targets: "a forty-fold increase in manufacturing volumes from a current average of 50 to 2025 cells per week" at "less than one quarter" the cost State from and to
SmartKem, rollable micro-LED screen26 Manchester; UK-Taiwan collaborative R&D 2024 with AUO; £896,163 of £1,659,562; 2025 to 2027 No reason published. Opens on the partner's problem: Taiwan's display industry squeezed by Chinese LCD prices and others' OLED patents In a bilateral competition, show the benefit to both sides
Ecoshred, REBLEND27 Widnes; Faraday Battery Challenge Round 5; £510,149 of £728,784, project £1,816,416 with eight partners; 2023 to 2025 No reason published. Tonnages, values and a policy threat: "CAMs are all sourced from overseas, creating critical security of supply issues" Two threats, each with a number
Heatio, home energy system trials28 Liverpool; Net Zero Living; £89,822 of £128,317; 2024 to 2025 No reason published. Every figure sourced: "Homes account for c.17% of all UK carbon emissions (DESNZ,2023)" Cite each number, even on a small grant
theTeacherCloud, SEND planning app29 Wilmslow; Smart, September 2023; £259,830 of £371,186; 2024 to 2025 No reason published. Team, then failure, then scale: "There were 1.29M SEND students in England in 2023, and 22% of mainstream teachers reported being unable to meet the needs of these pupils" Three sentences, three jobs
Made by Mortals CIC, Armchair Adventures30 Ashton-under-Lyne; DCMS Create Growth; £29,993; 2023 No reason published. One plain sentence: "Armchair Adventurers is a children's podcast series made by older people." Then 58 figures in 2,950 characters A £30k creative grant gets the same rigour
Urban 360, bioaerosol sensor31 Manchester; SBRI Clean Air phase 3; £89,258; 2024 to 2025 No reason published. Prices the incumbent: "sensors costing more than £100,000 or send samples for lab analysis" Put a price on the alternative
Medcotec, SteriPort (dataset only) Warrington; Growth Catalyst Investor Partnerships Round 2; £315,144 of £450,206; from July 202618 No reason published. The customer's two bad options ("cannot handle the high pressures ... or requires million-pound cleanroom facilities") and its prior grant "(successfully delivered with £319,000 UKRI funding in 2024)" Cite what you have already delivered
MyCardium AI, cardiac imaging (dataset only) Liverpool; Innovation Loans round 13; £1,170,000 loan on £1,500,000; 2024 to 202618 No reason published. Loans pass a quality threshold, then a credit team asks if the loan is "affordable to your business" and "appropriate for debt finance"33 Write a loan bid as a repayment case
Dunsters Farm and Manchester Met KTP34 Bury food wholesaler; 2025 KTP Awards Changing the World winner; grant not published Funder case study, outcomes only: delivery miles down 15%, carbon intensity down 15.2%, plastic down 71% then a further 60%, a £42m contract. KTP's top Impact band wants effects on "profit, turn-over, productivity and cost savings"35 Report impact in pounds, tonnes and contracts
NIHR i4i: MyoCaid36, PD PREDICT37 Cardiology Devices Ltd, £1,422,414.95, February 2026; Guilford Street Laboratories, £2,133,390, December 2025; both North West companies No reasons published. Both abstracts open on scale: Parkinson's "affects about 10 million people worldwide, and the number is expected to double in the next 15 years" Size and cost of the problem, then the device
EIC Accelerator, June 2026 results38 38 selected of 87 interviewed; UK: Fluorok, Inephany, Makesense Technology, Oxford Heartbeat, Seloxium, all grant only The EIC's stated reason is generic: "transformative technologies and strong commercial promise". A jury interview decides: 10 minutes of pitch, 35 of questions, "no pre-set questions"39 Rehearse the questions, not the slides
Versarien40 University of Liverpool spin-out; an early Innovate UK grant, amount not published; case study 2015 Founder's account: "It took the risk out for our shareholders and created a huge amount of validation" A first grant is evidence for investors. 2015 material; later years not covered

Investor decks and raises

What it is Who, when, how much Why it won (evidence) Lesson
LinkedIn Series B pitch, annotated41 Reid Hoffman to Greylock, 2004; $10m ask; 38 slides with his notes From the room: Greylock's thesis was a strong recruiting business with the option to become more. The pitch argued the network was the asset, met the revenue question first, named competitors and showed progress against Series A promises Lead with the thesis. "You need to be contrarian and right"; cut weak slides ("This slide is overkill")
Front Series C deck42 Mathilde Collin, February 2020 Founder retrospective, by slide: mission (3), product proof (6), hiring pace (7), market (12), incumbents that "haven't delivered on their promise" (13), revenue growth (14), vision (23). Built in two weeks; did not take the highest valuation Order: mission, proof, team, market, rivals, revenue, vision
Front Series D deck43 Mathilde Collin, July 2022; seven investors approached, five weeks to term sheet Founder's account: capital efficiency and answers to the downturn questions (rule of 40, spend as a share of revenue, date of profitability). "Growth at all costs was no longer rewarded" In a hard market, lead with unit economics
Airbnb seed deck (slides44) with Paul Graham's "The Airbnbs"45 c. 2008 to 2009; $600K (sources disagree on year and investors) Investor's account: the people. "The founders seemed so full of energy that it was impossible not to like them." The deck's $200M projection rests on a 15% share it never justifies46 Early money backs founders; thin numbers still get picked apart
Revolut on Seedrs47 Closed 11 August 2017; £3,927,802 from 4,260 investors for 1.36% at £275.9M pre-money; part of a larger institutional round No investor statement. The page runs a sourced problem ("77% of customers globally are unsatisfied with their bank"), one-line product, traction ("more than 750,000 customers who have transacted over $4.2 billion") and the institution's terms A crowd joins a priced round on the same terms
Monzo (then Mondo) on Crowdcube March 2016; £1m in 96 seconds from 1,861 investors for 3.33%, average £54248 No reasons published; the campaign page is behind Crowdcube's login Mechanics only: £1m for 3.33% implies about £30m post-money (our arithmetic)
Wejo, "Project Yellowstone" investor presentation49 UK connected-vehicle data firm; May 2021 SPAC deck, 47 slides; $800m enterprise value, $100m PIPE "fully committed" Filing: traction of "over 10.7 million live vehicles". Caution: later 2023 filings point to a further transaction we did not verify A full real deck, priced on forward revenue. Check what happened next before you copy it
Northern Gritstone posts: Cytotrait50, PhovIR51, Matter Machine52 £3m seed (March 2026); £4m seed (August 2025); £4m pre-Series A led by IP Group, Northern Gritstone £1.1m (October 2026) Investor posts: university-derived innovation, a named founder, a spin-out "customer-led ... ready for growth" (PhovIR), an experienced chief executive joining (Matter Machine). No metrics Make provenance, people, customer readiness and northern ambition explicit
PXN posts: Fruga53, Inovus Medical54 Manchester, £1m from NPIF II with Haatch, October 2026; St Helens, $9.3m round taking the total to $20m, September 2026 Investor quotes: a customer relationship "largely unchanged for years" (Fruga); simulators in nearly 300 residency programmes (Inovus) Name the stale market or count the customers
Angel criteria: Cambridge Angels56, Angel Academe57, GC Angels58 £150k to £1.5m, £100m-plus market, 10x in 7 to 10 years; £250,000 to £5m priced rounds, female founder with at least 20%; Greater Manchester firms, rounds £250k to £1.5m, £4m maximum pre-money Investors' own published tests Check your round against the numbers before you pitch

North West spin-outs show the grant-to-equity sequence in public records. Imperagen, Manchester, is the clearest: two grants under £300,000, then a seed round, then a grant that needed the investor1855:

Imperagen: grants, then equity, then a bigger grant
  1. ICURe follow-on£291,481
  2. Engineering Biology CR&D£244,539 of £349,342
  3. £5m seedled by PXN Ventures, with IQ Capital and Northern Gritstone
  4. Investor Partnerships grant£692,518 of £989,312

More of these stories in Innovate UK money.

Tenders and bids

What it is Who, when, how much Why it won (evidence) Lesson
Liverpool City Council, parking enforcement and permit system59 Cabinet, 13 October 2026; about £806,815 over up to seven years60; five bidders; technical 60%, social value 10%, price 30% Evaluation report: technical "primarily ranked as good-excellent"; a social value proposal "which provides good value to the local community". Scores below Social value, scored against the best offer, beat the lowest price
GOV.UK, how to bid as an SME61 Cabinet Office and DfE; updated 23 March 2023 Official model answer, built sentence by sentence: feature, method, value, evidence, advantage; and a weakness turned into a commitment to accreditation within six months Copy the five-part sentence
Scottish Government, an AI-written answer critiqued62 A catering supplier's fair work answer Buyer's critique of a loser: "no substantive detail as to how the catering company ... would deliver the service" Generic text fails the method test
Government Commercial Agency, write effective bids63 Formerly Crown Commercial Service, renamed 1 April 2026 Official six steps: plan, research the buyer, write, present, quality-check, learn. "A great answer is one that buyers and evaluators can read and understand" Step six is the one most bidders skip
Warwick District Council, weak and good answers64 Buyer-published pairs Quoted below A date beats a dismissal
Bracknell Forest Council, method statement response document65 Insurance and claims handling, 2019; "maximum of 1,000 words" per answer A buyer's own template: appendices only enhance and must be page-referenced; the method must not "contain promises ... that cannot be achieved or maintained" The response template is the marking scheme
Dunsters Farm, £42m food distribution contract34 Bury; six to nine years, about 35% of turnover; buyer not named Company's statement: won "based on our strong social value commitments and results": 176% over target, £5m across 14 charities, 216 volunteer hours, five apprenticeships Measured past delivery wins the next social value marks
Hygiene Pro Clean, ambulance decontamination66 Coventry; Contracts for Innovation for the Welsh Ambulance Service, 2020; awarded six weeks after launch Buyer-side test: "Of the 11 solutions tested by the Defence Security and Technology Lab (DSTL), HPC's stood out." Fleet cleaning time fell from 331.5 to 45.7 hours In innovation procurement the trial is the bid
Far-UK, lightweight glazing67 Rail first-of-a-kind 2020, demonstrated on the Coventry tram No selection reason. The company: "an important tool in gaining access to new potential customers" A demonstration contract is a sales asset
SBRI Healthcare: CardMedic68, Concentric69 NHS pre-commercial contracts; both in 25-plus trusts; award amounts not published No panel statements. Results since: 100% of surveyed urgent-care staff said communication improved (CardMedic); 200,000-plus patients consented (Concentric) Your evaluation becomes the next buyer's evidence
Social Value Portal stories: Services Design Solution70, GreenZone71, Nuneaton Signs72 2021 to 2022; self-reported, no contract named Commitment sets with numbers: 1% of turnover to local projects; 1% of profit reinvested; six apprenticeships and 3,000 trees. "Because we don't want fictitious figures" Every commitment gets a number and a report

Liverpool weighted the tender 60% technical, 10% social value and 30% price59:

Liverpool parking system tender, October 2026
  • Technical 60%
  • Social value 10%
  • Price 30%

The scores, out of 60, 10 and 3059:

Bidder Technical Social value Price Total (rank)
D 56.80 10.00 24.76 91.56 (1st)
E 55.00 5.89 20.66 81.55 (2nd)
C 49.30 0.76 30.00 80.06 (3rd)
B 46.60 0.60 23.54 70.74 (4th)
A 51.90 1.50 6.25 59.65 (5th)

Bidder C had the lowest price and full price marks. D beat it by 11.50 points: 7.50 on technical, 9.24 on social value, minus 5.24 on price. Because social value was scored relative to the best offer, four of five bidders scored under 2 out of 1059:

Social value score out of 10, by bidder
Bidder D10.00winner
Bidder E5.89
Bidder A1.50
Bidder C0.76lowest price
Bidder B0.60

More on the method in writing a winning bid and social value.

Arts, heritage and community

What it is Who, when, how much Why it won (evidence) Lesson
The Hinge Centre, application tips73 Bridlington charity; £264,977 Reaching Communities grant; National Lottery Community Fund article, 10 September 2026 Grant holder's account, published by the funder: "The strongest applications are always the ones that bring people's voices to life." "We've learned to write less about organisational structure and more about real impact." People's words beat an organisation chart
PRS Foundation, Liverpool City Region Momentum Accelerator grantees74 August 2026; artists up to £5,000 (Niki Kand, Bethane, Jazmine Johnson), industry professionals up to £1,000 No panel text. Each grant names a concrete output (a third EP, a debut EP), which is what the fund's test of "why this particular activity is so crucial" asks for75 Name the output, not the ambition
Writing West Midlands, DYCP winners76 Arts Council England Developing Your Creative Practice, June 2022 Applicant's own statement, not the form: "For twenty years as a traditional storyteller, I have told other people's fables ... It is time to write my own." A development case is a specific shift with a reason
Heritage Fund application questions, £10,000 to £250,00077 Updated 3 July 2026; vision 150 words, heritage focus 500, heritage at risk 500 The real form. "Each question has a word limit; however, you don't need to reach this." Draft into the real questions from day one
Heritage Fund budget template78 and activity plan guide79 Excel sheets for £10,000 to £250,000 and £250,000 to £10m (May 2024) Optional templates. "The development process usually takes months not weeks." Start the activity plan early

No artist's self-published Arts Council application could be found. More in arts, heritage and community.

Official templates and "what good looks like"

What it is Who, when What it shows Lesson
Innovate UK competition 258280 and its assessor guidance81 Opened 12 October 2026 Ten scored questions of 400 to 800 words, three assessors, 1 to 10 bands; team capped at 5 if a CV is missing. Market 9-10: "fully quantified and evidenced" Write each answer to the top band's words
KTP assessor and scoring guidance35 Innovate UK, September 2023 Impact, Innovation, Challenge and Cohesiveness, each 1 to 10, total out of 40, with band wording The plainest "what a 9 looks like" in the Innovate UK family
Horizon Europe RIA and IA form, v5.182 European Commission, 22 January 2026 Indicative pages: objectives 4, methodology 14, impact 3 and 3. "Please, do not consider the page limit as a target!" Spend pages where the marks are
EIC Accelerator guide v6.039 19 November 2025 Step 1 deck "up to ten slides"; full-proposal deck has "no pre-defined template"; 45-minute interview The deck you write is the deck you defend
Y Combinator seed deck template83 YC Startup Library, 2018 slides "Talk about what makes your team particularly well suited to the problem ... Nobody cares about your advisors." "Tell the investor how much money you need, and what it gets you." Founders on the team slide; the ask in pounds and milestones
SeedLegals UK pitch deck template84 Updated 13 February 2026 Ten sections, plus an SEIS/EIS advance assurance version with roadmap, use of funds and forecast Use the SEIS/EIS version if HMRC will read it
a16z, 16 startup metrics85 Andreessen Horowitz, 2015 "A common mistake is to use bookings and revenue interchangeably" Define every metric on your traction slide
Playfair standard term sheet86 Pre-seed investor, current A real term sheet: 1x non-participating preference, a 10% option pool before completion, four-year founder vesting with a one-year cliff Read one before you negotiate one
Annotated narrative CV87 University of Surrey, May 2022 (illustrative, not a real applicant) "Rather than lists, the reviewers will be looking for a narrative style written in the first person" Write the CV as evidence, not a list

Weak versus strong, from real documents

Warwick's paired answers

Warwick District Council publishes weak and good answers side by side64.

Weak: health and safety

"Yes, see Appendix 1."

Strong: health and safety

"The Health & Safety of our staff and customers is a vital part of the company's quality process." The answer then sets out the policy on the page. For a firm with under five staff: "Although we are not required legally to have a Health & Safety Policy, we take this matter very seriously".

Weak: quality assurance

"We operate our own quality system. We have determined that formal accreditation is inappropriate to our company's needs… Complaints are the responsibility of the Managing Director."

Strong: quality assurance

"We regard quality as a vitally important part of our business activity… in the process of applying for ISO 9001 (we expect to be assessed in May of this year)".

The weak versions give an evaluator nothing to score: a referral and an argument with the question. The strong versions answer on the page and turn a gap into a dated commitment.

Public descriptions: thin against strong

Among North West Innovate UK winners since 2023, the weakest public descriptions are real, funded and probably written in a hurry, so we describe them rather than name the firms18.

Weak pattern Seen on Strong opener that does the job
One sentence, no numbers A carbon-capture feasibility project, £48,648, 2023: 134 characters in all Ecoshred: tonnages, a value, then "CAMs are all sourced from overseas"27
A big award, a thin summary A farm robotics project with a lead grant above £1.84m: about 61 words, one sentence, no numerals Wilbo's Blends: population, then the NHS cost, in two sentences19
A Smart winner with no quantification A cell-therapy platform, £342,813: about 56 words, no numerals theTeacherCloud: team, failure, "1.29M SEND students"29
"World's first" without evidence Two £30,000 to £50,000 creative-industry awards Urban 360: the incumbent's price, "more than £100,000"31
Physics before the customer A fusion project whose first three sentences explain the sun Ainostics: the undiagnosed third, before any technology24

The thin ones still won, which tells you the description is not what was scored. It is what partners, journalists and Bearings read, so write it last, from your scored answers.

Rejected, then funded: what changed

These are the clearest evidence of what moves a decision, because the idea stayed the same.

If you lost

Put your feedback beside the criteria, list what the assessors named, and change those things first. Change the scheme when the fit was the problem. Say what changed if the form lets you.

North West winners in this library

  • Innovate UK: GT Green Technologies, Birkenhead, £1,928,414; QV Bioelectronics, Cheshire East, £1,258,770; Ainostics, Manchester, £1,194,552 (SBRI contract); SmartKem, Manchester, £896,163; LiNa Energy, Lancaster, £815,442; Ecoshred, Widnes, £510,149; Medcotec, Warrington, £315,144; theTeacherCloud, Wilmslow, £259,830; Wilbo's Blends, Manchester, £183,256; Enturi Solutions, Birkenhead, £97,953 (Launchpad; the title promises bills "reduced by £68K")32; Heatio, Liverpool, £89,822; Urban 360, Manchester, £89,258; Made by Mortals CIC, Ashton-under-Lyne, £29,993.
  • Loans: MyCardium AI, Liverpool, £1,170,000; ULEMCo, Sefton, £1,801,462; Proteus Tidal, Manchester, £1,964,04118.
  • Health research: NIHR i4i to Guilford Street Laboratories, £2,133,390; Cardiology Devices, £1,422,414.95; QV Bioelectronics, £1,206,498.
  • Research: LJMU's two Marie Curie fellowships, €276,187.92 each.
  • KTP and contracts: Dunsters Farm, Bury, with Manchester Met, and its £42m contract; Liverpool City Council's parking system, about £806,815, won on 91.56 out of 100.
  • Investment: Cytotrait £3m and PhovIR £4m (Northern Gritstone seeds); Matter Machine £4m; Fruga £1m (NPIF II); Inovus Medical, St Helens, $9.3m.
  • Music: PRS Foundation's Liverpool City Region grantees, up to £5,000 each.
  • Find more on Bearings and in the Gateway to Research records for your area.

What we could not get, and where to find more

Missing Why Where to look instead
Innovate UK scored answers and assessor notes Never published Gateway to Research (any project at gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref= plus its number) and the UKRI dataset, filtered by Address Region18
The ERC reports behind Deville's pair The download host refused us Figshare in your own browser; the FFG list for more proposals14
Funded UKRI research-council proposals Hardly anyone posts them The Open Grants repository (strong for ERC, Marie Curie, NSF and NIH; weak for UKRI)15; your research office's past cases
Winning tenders released under FOI WhatDoTheyKnow blocked automated access WhatDoTheyKnow in a browser; council committee papers (award reports like Liverpool's); award notices on Find a Tender; for contracts over £5m, the published redacted contract88
Your rival's winning scores Not public Bid. Every assessed bidder gets the winning tender's score and explanation for each criterion89
Arts Council applications None self-published found; the site blocked automated access Writer-development agencies' winner lists; 360Giving's GrantNav for award titles and amounts
UK crowdfunding pitch pages Crowdcube's pages need a login Log in and read the closed campaigns; SEC filings for UK firms that listed through US deals

Checklist: read three winners before you write

Questions

Where can I read real winning grant applications?

Full proposals are mostly European: authors post ERC and Marie Curie proposals on Figshare and Zenodo, and the FFG keeps a list. For UK innovation grants, Gateway to Research and the UKRI dataset give each winner's public description and amount, not the scored answers. NIHR's open data does the same for i4i awards.

Does Innovate UK publish successful applications?

No. It publishes the project title, the amount and a public description written by the applicant, in a part of the form that is not scored. Use those for how winners frame the need, and the competition's assessor-guidance PDF for what scores.

Can I see the winning bid for a council tender?

Rarely in full. Council committee papers sometimes publish the evaluation, as Liverpool did in October 2026 with every bidder's scores. If you bid yourself, the assessment summary gives you the winner's score and explanation for each criterion.

Are the famous Monzo and Revolut pitch decks real?

Treat copies on deck-collection sites with care: they rarely say where the deck came from, and their dates and amounts contain errors. Revolut's 2017 Seedrs page is still public with its terms. Monzo's 2016 Crowdcube page needs a login.

Is it allowed to copy a winning application?

Copy the structure, not the text. Many published proposals are under a CC BY licence, which allows reuse with credit, but assessors score fit to their own criteria, and a borrowed answer will not fit yours.

What do winning applications have in common?

The need, with a number and a source, in the first sentence or two; the criteria answered in order; evidence instead of adjectives; a concrete deliverable; and, in tenders, a method the buyer can check. Where deciders give reasons, they also name the people: Paul Graham on Airbnb's founders, Northern Gritstone on its spin-out teams.

Should I resubmit a rejected application?

Often, yes, if the rules allow. The ERC says resubmissions have a higher success rate; Deville went from rejection to a top score in a year, and Bergman won by re-cutting a rejected case for another council's scheme. Change what the feedback named.

Sources

  1. Sylvain Deville, "My (successful and unsuccessful) ERC Starting Grant Proposals", Figshare record 7110767 (CC BY 4.0; updated 10 May 2022). https://api.figshare.com/v2/articles/7110767 ↩↩

  2. Casey Bergman, "2008 NERC New Investigator Grant Application", Figshare record 94130 (CC BY 4.0). https://api.figshare.com/v2/articles/94130 ↩↩

  3. Casey Bergman and Goran Nenadic, "2008 BBSRC Tools and Resources Development Fund Application", Figshare record 94137. https://api.figshare.com/v2/articles/94137 ↩

  4. Thomas Emery, "ERC Starting Grant Proposal: CHILDCARE STRATEGIES", Zenodo, 19 July 2022 (CC BY 4.0). https://zenodo.org/records/6860359 ↩

  5. Marco Baroni, ALiEN, ERC Advanced Grant 2020, Part B1. https://marcobaroni.org/alien/ALIEN-ERC_AdG_2020_B1.pdf ↩

  6. Elisabeth Kingma, BUMP, ERC Starting Grant 2015, Part B1, University of Southampton. https://cdn.southampton.ac.uk/assets/imported/transforms/content-block/UsefulDownloads_Download/90F738F851E64C3CA28788ED367B1AA3/Kingma%20BUMP%20ERC_StG_2015%20B1.pdf ↩

  7. John Joseph Carrasco, preQFT, ERC Starting Grant 2014, Figshare record 5142502 (CC BY 4.0). https://api.figshare.com/v2/articles/5142502 ↩

  8. Detlef Weigel, Fabrice Roux and Joy Bergelson, PATHOCOM proposal, Figshare record 13174337 (CC BY 4.0). https://api.figshare.com/v2/articles/13174337 ↩

  9. Endymion Cooper, FRAXIFAM, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship, Figshare record 1456169. https://api.figshare.com/v2/articles/1456169 ↩

  10. Olivier Missa, Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship application, Zenodo record 830239. https://zenodo.org/api/records/830239 ↩

  11. Miguel de Navascués, TimeAdapt, MSCA Individual Fellowship 2017, Zenodo record 3267084. https://zenodo.org/api/records/3267084 ↩

  12. CORDIS, NextSAC, project 101207559 (Liverpool John Moores University). https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101207559 ↩

  13. CORDIS, IMRA4CE, project 101210582 (Liverpool John Moores University). https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101210582 ↩

  14. FFG, "Published ERC proposals". https://www.ffg.at/europa/heu/erc/published-proposals ↩↩

  15. Open Grants repository (Ethan White), _grants folder. https://github.com/ethanwhite/ogrants ↩

  16. Circular Bio-based Europe Joint Undertaking, "Lessons learnt from the 2022-24 calls" (D. Brigitta), 3 April 2025. https://www.cbe.europa.eu/system/files/2025-04/3.5%20Lessons%20learnt%20from%20the%202022-24%20calls%20-%20Dieter%20Brigitta.pdf ↩

  17. Evi Lianidou, "Practical hints and tips for a successful ERC application", ERC, October 2025. https://erc.europa.eu/system/files/2025-10/Presentation-Practical-hints-and-tips-for-a%20successful-ERC-application-Lianidou.pdf ↩

  18. UKRI, "Innovate UK funded projects since 2004", updated 12 October 2026 (North West lead participants; our reading of the Public Description field). https://www.ukri.org/publications/innovate-uk-funded-projects-since-2004/ ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩

  19. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10068044, Wilbo's Blends Limited. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10068044 ↩↩

  20. GrantTree, Wilbo's Blends case study (commercial; its award figure differs from the dataset's). https://granttree.co.uk/resources/wilbos-blends-case-study/ ↩

  21. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10145147, QV Bioelectronics Ltd, GRACE. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10145147 ↩

  22. NIHR Funding and Awards, NIHR209472, QV Bioelectronics Ltd (i4i). https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR209472 ↩

  23. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10097743, GT Green Technologies Ltd, AirWing. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10097743 ↩

  24. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10123755, Ainostics Limited. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10123755 ↩↩

  25. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10095172, LiNa Energy Ltd. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10095172 ↩

  26. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10122955, SmartKem Limited, ARTEMIS. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10122955 ↩

  27. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10043366, Ecoshred Limited, REBLEND. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10043366 ↩↩

  28. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10100702, Heatio Ltd. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10100702 ↩

  29. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10113418, theTeacherCloud Ltd. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10113418 ↩↩

  30. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10070287, Made by Mortals CIC. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10070287 ↩

  31. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10115434, Urban 360 Ltd. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10115434 ↩↩

  32. UKRI Gateway to Research, project 10054724, Enturi Solutions Ltd. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=10054724 ↩

  33. UKRI, Innovation Loans, "How we assess your application", updated 7 May 2026. https://www.ukri.org/councils/innovate-uk/guidance-for-applicants/guidance-for-specific-funds/innovation-loans/how-we-assess-your-application/ ↩

  34. Innovate UK KTP, "Leading sustainable food distribution through innovation and social value" (Dunsters Farm and Manchester Metropolitan University), 8 December 2025. https://iuk-ktp.org.uk/case-study/leading-sustainable-food-distribution-through-innovation-and-social-value/ ↩↩

  35. Innovate UK, KTP assessor and scoring guidance, 11 September 2023. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/IUK-110923-KTPAssessorAndScoringGuidance.pdf ↩↩

  36. NIHR Funding and Awards, NIHR506326, Cardiology Devices Ltd, MyoCaid (plain English abstract via NIHR open data). https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR506326 ↩↩

  37. NIHR Funding and Awards, NIHR209391, Guilford Street Laboratories Ltd, PD PREDICT. https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR209391 ↩

  38. European Innovation Council, "38 start-ups and SMEs secure EIC support", 15 June 2026, and the selected-companies list. https://eic.ec.europa.eu/news/38-start-ups-and-smes-secure-eic-support-latest-round-eic-accelerator-2026-06-15_en ↩

  39. European Innovation Council, EIC Accelerator guide for applicants v6.0, 19 November 2025. https://eic.ec.europa.eu/document/download/9d96fbf3-4d85-4ad0-9483-c77ce348111d_en?filename=EIC%20Accelerator%20guide%20for%20applicants_WP26.pdf ↩↩

  40. GOV.UK case study, "Versarien: pre-revenue to £5 million in 3 years", 17 June 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/case-studies/versarien-pre-revenue-to-5-million-in-3-years ↩

  41. Reid Hoffman, "LinkedIn's Series B pitch to Greylock". https://www.reidhoffman.org/linkedin-pitch-to-greylock/ ↩

  42. Mathilde Collin, "Front Series C deck", 4 February 2020 (read via her Medium feed, https://medium.com/feed/@collinmathilde). https://collinmathilde.medium.com/front-series-c-deck-11773b30b272 ↩

  43. Mathilde Collin, "Front Series D deck", 1 July 2022. https://collinmathilde.medium.com/front-series-d-deck-ae5412f90bbe ↩

  44. Failory, Airbnb pitch deck (slides; its metadata elsewhere contains errors). https://www.failory.com/pitch-deck/airbnb ↩

  45. Paul Graham, "The Airbnbs", December 2020. http://paulgraham.com/airbnbs.html ↩

  46. Launchrock, "Airbnb pitch deck teardown and redesign". https://www.launchrock.com/library/expert-advice/airbnb-pitch-deck-teardown-and-redesign ↩

  47. Seedrs, Revolut campaign page (closed 11 August 2017). https://www.seedrs.com/revolut ↩

  48. Startups.co.uk, "Start-up Mondo raises £1m from the crowd in just 96 seconds", 4 March 2016. https://startups.co.uk/news/start-up-mondo-raises-1m-from-the-crowd-in-just-96-seconds/ ↩

  49. US SEC, Wejo Group Limited, Form 425 filing of 28 May 2021, Exhibit 99.2 "Project Yellowstone, Investor Presentation - May 2021" and release. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1822888/000110465921074265/tm2117781d1_425.htm ↩

  50. Northern Gritstone, "Northern Gritstone invests in Cytotrait", March 2026. https://www.northern-gritstone.com/news/northern-gritstone-invests-in-cytotrait ↩

  51. Northern Gritstone, "Northern Gritstone invests in PhovIR", August 2025. https://www.northern-gritstone.com/news/northern-gritstone-invests-in-phovir ↩

  52. Northern Gritstone, "Northern Gritstone invests £1.1 million into University of Liverpool spinout Matter Machine", 13 October 2026. https://www.northern-gritstone.com/news/northern-gritstone-invests-in-mattermachine ↩

  53. PXN Ventures, "Manchester insurtech scaleup Fruga raises £1m from NPIF II", October 2026. https://www.pxnventures.co.uk/manchester-insurtech-scaleup-fruga-raises-1m-from-npif-ii/ ↩

  54. PXN Ventures, "Inovus Medical extends funding to $20 million with continued NPIF backing", September 2026. https://www.pxnventures.co.uk/inovus-medical-extends-funding-to-20-million-with-continued-npif-backing/ ↩

  55. PXN Investments, "Imperagen secures £5m to power next-gen enzyme engineering", 21 May 2026. https://www.pxninvestments.co.uk/resource-centre/insights/imperagen-secures-5m-to-power-next-gen-enzyme-engineering ↩

  56. Cambridge Angels, "Entrepreneurs". https://www.cambridgeangels.com/entrepreneurs ↩

  57. Angel Academe, "Founders". https://angelacademe.com/founders ↩

  58. PXN Founder Hub, "Investor profile: GC Angels". https://founderhub.pxnventures.co.uk/article/investor-profile-gc-angels ↩

  59. Liverpool City Council, Cabinet 13 October 2026, Parking Enforcement and Permit Services Transformation Programme, Appendix 1: Evaluation Outcome and Award Recommendation. https://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/documents/s329288/Appendix%201%20Evaluation%20Outcome%20and%20Award%20Recommendation%20-%20not%20exempt.pdf ↩↩↩↩

  60. Liverpool City Council, Cabinet 13 October 2026, "Penalty Charge Notice and Permit Management System" (estimated value £806,814.79 excluding VAT). https://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/documents/s329286/Penalty%20Charge%20Notice%20and%20Permit%20Management%20System.pdf ↩

  61. Cabinet Office and Department for Education, "How to bid for government contracts as an SME effectively", updated 23 March 2023. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-bid-for-government-contracts-as-an-sme-effectively ↩

  62. Scottish Government Supplier Journey, "An Example of AI Being Used to Write Bid Content". https://www.supplierjourney.scot/additional-resources/example-ai-being-used-write-bid-content ↩

  63. Government Commercial Agency, "Write effective bids". https://www.gca.gov.uk/how-to-supply/write-effective-bids ↩

  64. Warwick District Council, "How to do business with Warwick District Council", paired weak and good answers. https://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/info/20010/business_procurement/1518/how_to_do_business_with_warwick_district_council/4 ↩↩

  65. Bracknell Forest Council, "Schedule 1 Method Statement Detailed Proposal Response Document", 2019. https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-11/2019%20Insurance%20Method%20Statement.pdf ↩

  66. Innovate UK Business Connect, "Hygiene Pro Clean: transforming decontamination and cleaning services through Contracts for Innovation award", 17 March 2025. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/casestudy/hygiene-pro-clean-transforming-decontamination-and-cleaning-services-through-contracts-for-innovation-award/ ↩

  67. Innovate UK Business Connect, "Breaking new ground: how Innovate UK's Contracts for Innovation helped Far-UK expand its market reach", 22 May 2025. https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk/casestudy/breaking-new-ground-how-innovate-uks-contracts-for-innovation-helped-far-uk-expand-its-market-reach/ ↩

  68. SBRI Healthcare, case study: CardMedic. https://sbrihealthcare.co.uk/impact-case-studies/case-studies/cardmedic ↩

  69. SBRI Healthcare, case study: Concentric. https://sbrihealthcare.co.uk/impact-case-studies/case-studies/concentric ↩

  70. Social Value Portal, "Service Design Solution: an SME that lives and breathes social value", 5 May 2022 (self-reported). https://www.socialvalueportal.com/success-stories/service-design-solution-an-sme-that-lives-and-breathes-social-value ↩

  71. Social Value Portal, "GreenZone Cleaning & Support Services", 29 April 2022 (self-reported). https://www.socialvalueportal.com/success-stories/greenzone-cleaning-support-services-a-cleaning-company-with-a-difference ↩

  72. Social Value Portal, "Nuneaton Signs: calculating and reporting social value successes", 5 October 2021 (self-reported). https://www.socialvalueportal.com/success-stories/nuneaton-signs-calculating-and-reporting-social-value-successes ↩

  73. The National Lottery Community Fund, "Application tips from The Hinge Centre", 10 September 2026. https://www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/news/application-tips-from-the-hinge-centre ↩

  74. PRS Foundation, "Latest PPL Momentum Music Fund grantees ... and PPL Momentum Accelerator grantees in Liverpool City Region and Tees Valley announced", 6 August 2026. https://prsfoundation.com/2026/08/06/latest-ppl-momentum-music-fund-grantees-across-the-uk-and-ppl-momentum-accelerator-grantees-in-liverpool-city-region-and-tees-valley-announced-2/ ↩

  75. PRS Foundation, "The Open Fund for Music Creators". https://prsfoundation.com/funding-support/funding-music-creators/the-open-fund-for-music-creators/ ↩

  76. Writing West Midlands, "West Midlands writers celebrate June 2022 DYCP success", 9 June 2022. https://writingwestmidlands.org/west-midlands-writers-celebrate-june-2022-dycp-success/ ↩

  77. The National Lottery Heritage Fund, "Application questions: £10,000 to £250,000", updated 3 July 2026. https://www.heritagefund.org.uk/funding/national-lottery-heritage-grants-10k-250k/application-questions-0 ↩

  78. The National Lottery Heritage Fund, "Project budget template", updated 7 May 2024. https://www.heritagefund.org.uk/funding/good-practice-guidance/project-budget-template ↩

  79. The National Lottery Heritage Fund, "Activity plan good practice guidance". https://www.heritagefund.org.uk/funding/good-practice-guidance/activity-plan ↩

  80. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2582, "Efficient, Structured and Controllable AI Systems" (Phase 1), opens 12 October 2026. https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2582/overview/9fdb47a5-011c-4c47-ac5e-c426e295fe89 ↩↩

  81. Innovation Funding Service, competition 2582, assessor guidance for applicants (PDF). https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2582/download/30809 ↩↩

  82. European Commission, Horizon Europe application form (RIA and IA), v5.1, 22 January 2026. https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/horizon/temp-form/af/af_he-ria-ia_en.pdf ↩

  83. Y Combinator Startup Library, "How to build your seed round pitch deck". https://www.ycombinator.com/library/2u-how-to-build-your-seed-round-pitch-deck ↩

  84. SeedLegals, "Startup pitch deck template for UK startups", updated 13 February 2026. https://seedlegals.com/resources/pitch-deck-template-uk-startups/ ↩

  85. Andreessen Horowitz, "16 Startup Metrics", 21 August 2015. https://a16z.com/16-startup-metrics/ ↩

  86. Playfair Capital, standard pre-seed term sheet (PDF). https://playfair.vc/files/playfair-capital-term-sheet.pdf ↩

  87. University of Surrey, "Annotated Draft Resume for Researchers", May 2022. https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-05/R4R-like-CV-annotated-for-guidance-purposes.pdf ↩

  88. YPO and Doncaster Council, "Procurement Act Guide for SMEs", June 2024 (contracts over £5m: redacted contract published within 120 days). https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Documents/DocumentView/Stream/Media/Default/Corporate%20Procurement/Procurement%20Act%20Guide%20for%20SMEs%20-%20June%202024%20(1).pdf ↩

  89. The Procurement Regulations 2024, regulation 31 (assessment summaries). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/692/regulation/31 ↩

Written for businesses, founders and researchers in the North West of England and checked against the sources listed above on 18 October 2026. Funders change their rules, so always read the current call before you apply. Spotted something out of date? Tell us.

Start hereHow funding really works: the honest guide to your odds, your options and where to startWhat each kind of money wants back, the real success rates with dates, the five things that move them, and three first steps for founders, SMEs, researchers, charities and public-sector suppliers.26 min readGrantsWinning Innovate UK grants: how applications are scored, question by questionHow Innovate UK scores the ten questions, the 2026 routes now Smart is closed, the odds printed on each competition, and North West winners.26 min readResearch fundingWinning research grants: UKRI, Future Leaders, Horizon Europe, ERC and NIHRUKRI's real odds by council, the 1 to 6 scale reviewers use, word limits, Horizon Europe and ERC thresholds, and the five failures that lose marks everywhere.25 min readInvestmentInvestors: who they are, what each one needs, and how to find the right oneAngels, crowdfunding, VCs, spin-out funds, NPIF II, loans and grants: what each needs from you, UK benchmarks, and the North West routes as of October 2026.21 min readPublic contractsWriting the bid: method statements, evidence and the scoring behind the marksHow evaluators score public tenders, what moves a 3 to a 5, the price formula, and a method for writing answers that earn the marks, with templates.20 min read

Put it to work

Find live opportunities → Get email alerts All guides