Table 2, Part B proposal · Section 2.3
These are the Grant Agreement's own success criteria, not a locally invented scorecard. 3 of 7 are materially gated by the knowledge base's coverage and accuracy; the rest depend on UX, backend engineering or dissemination instead — flagged below rather than claimed.
| Category | Baseline (2024) | Target (M36) | Verification | KB-driven? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time-to-application Directly gated by how completely and accurately the catalogue covers what a Node actually offers. | ~6 weeks average | ≤4 weeks (−30%) | Portal analytics; user surveys | yes |
| Misrouted enquiries A misroute is usually a modelling gap or a stale record, not a UX failure. | ~15% of cases require re-direction | −30% | Helpdesk tracking | yes |
| Utilisation of high-end instruments Depends on niche/advanced services actually being findable — a discoverability problem the model has to solve. | Variable; some facilities <50% utilisation | +15% utilisation | Node reports | yes |
| Daily/Monthly Active Users (DAU/MAU) Return-use signal — mostly a product/UX outcome, though a stale knowledge base would suppress it. | N/A | ≥0.30 | Navigator usage logs | — |
| User base | ~1,100 cumulative applications; ~3,000 registered users; ~17% from widening countries | +30% growth; +25% from widening countries | Access statistics; uptake dashboard | — |
| SME participation | ~10% of users | ≥30% increase in SME projects | SME-tagged applications | — |
| Energy footprint per query Owned by WP4/WP6 retrieval and caching strategy, not the model's shape. | Not yet measured | ≥50% reduction | WP6 energy reports | — |
From the proposal's Impact section — each mapped to the work packages that own it. Where the narrative text and the KPI table above state different numbers for the same thing, that's noted rather than silently picking one.
The Navigator and its ontology-based service descriptions tested/adopted in at least 10 Nodes by project end, at least 5 fully adopting the widget.
User base +30% (+25% from widening countries), ≥95% satisfaction, ≥0.30 DAU/MAU, and — per the KPI table rather than the narrative text, which cites a different figure — ≤4 weeks time-to-application.
Navigator stack targets TRL-6 by M36; facility-system adapters TRL-5; governance/compliance toolkits SRL≈5. SUS ≥75, uptake ≥50%, publications acknowledging Euro-BioImaging +20%.
International users +25% within two years; ≥100 cross-RI referrals/year; ≥25% of proposals combining ≥2 ERICs; white-label toolkit adopted by 3–5 ERICs; ≥20 services exposed via EOSC.
Energy consumption per user request reduced by >50% by project completion, via dynamic selection of the most energy-efficient model.
Utilisation +15%, support quality +30%, ≥5 Navigator adoptions by other ERICs, ≥10% of operating costs from diversified post-grant funding.