The European Research Council has restructured the core scientific narrative of its grant applications for 2026 calls. What research administrators and applicants have long known as the “B1” and “B2” forms of the Scientific Proposal are now formally labelled Part I and Part II, and the change is more than a rename — page limits, content scope, and where each part is assessed in the evaluation process have all shifted.
What actually changed
Per the ERC’s own published guidance on the 2026 and 2027 work programmes, the proposal template has been shortened and restructured so that the two parts of the Scientific Proposal are complementary rather than overlapping, cutting redundancy that applicants and reviewers had both flagged in earlier calls.
- Part I (previously the “Extended Synopsis,” submitted as form B1) stays at a 5-page limit, unchanged from before, but its scope has narrowed. It now focuses exclusively on the research concept: current state of knowledge, the scientific questions the project will attempt to answer, the project’s objectives, and the overall research strategy. Feasibility discussion has been deliberately moved out of Part I and into Part II.
- Part II (form B2) covers implementation in detail — methodology, work plan, risk assessment and mitigating measures, and budget/resource justification, plus any background not already covered in Part I. Its limit is 7 pages for Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced Grant applications, and 10 pages for Synergy Grant applications. Budget justification itself remains outside the page count.
That’s a real reduction in total narrative length. Under the pre-2026 template, Part B2 alone ran up to roughly 14 pages; the new combined Part I + Part II ceiling for Starting/Consolidator/Advanced applicants is 12 pages (5 + 7), with Synergy applicants at 15 (5 + 10).
Why the ERC calls it “Part I / Part II” and not “B1 / B2” anymore
B1 and B2 were, and technically still are, the underlying submission-form labels in the ERC’s electronic submission system for the Scientific Proposal annex. “Part I” and “Part II” are the ERC’s new content-oriented names for what each form is meant to contain under the 2026 rules. In practice the two labels now map directly onto each other (Part I = B1, Part II = B2), but the renaming signals the more substantive point: the ERC redrew the line between the two sections rather than just relabelling them, so a Part I/Part II proposal built on the old B1/B2 content split — concept in one, everything else crammed into the other with feasibility duplicated in both — will not fit the new template cleanly.
The evaluation process shift that goes with it
The restructuring is tied to a change in how ERC panels evaluate proposals across the two-step process:
- Step 1 now assesses Part I only, together with the applicant’s CV and track record, and is explicitly focused on the ambition and novelty of the idea — not on feasibility.
- Step 2 is where feasibility, methodology, and implementation are evaluated in full, using both Part I and Part II together.
This sequencing is the underlying rationale for narrowing Part I’s scope: since feasibility is no longer assessed until Step 2, there is no longer a reason for applicants to front-load implementation detail into the 5-page concept section, and doing so now wastes space that other reviewers will expect to see spent on ambition and state-of-the-art positioning instead.
Which calls this applies to
The restructured template applies to the ERC’s 2026 work programme calls (Starting, Consolidator, Advanced, and Synergy Grants). It does not retroactively apply to calls that were already open under the previous template before the change took effect — applicants working from an earlier call’s proposal template or a draft built against the old B1/B2 structure should confirm which work programme and call year their specific deadline falls under before assuming the new page limits and evaluation split apply.
Practical implications for applicants and research offices
- Don’t port an old B2 outline forward unchanged. A proposal drafted against the pre-2026 ~14-page implementation section will need real cutting, not just reformatting, to fit the new 7-page (or 10-page, for Synergy) Part II limit.
- Move feasibility language out of Part I. Reviewers assessing Part I are now explicitly instructed to weigh ambition and novelty; feasibility detail left in Part I is no longer serving the purpose it once did there, and space is tighter.
- Treat Part I and Part II as complementary, not redundant. The ERC’s own stated intent is to eliminate the overlap that existed under the old B1/B2 split — repeating the same state-of-the-art paragraph in both sections now costs the applicant page budget in two places instead of adding emphasis.
- Confirm the applicable work programme before drafting. Research offices supporting multiple ERC applicants across different call years should verify which template version (pre- or post-2026 restructuring) governs each specific deadline rather than assuming uniformity across the portfolio.
How this differs from the ERC Data Management Plan requirement
This restructuring is about the Scientific Proposal narrative (Part I/Part II, the B1/B2 forms) — it is a separate requirement from the Data Management Plan the ERC requires under Horizon Europe’s open science rules. The DMP is not part of the page-limited Scientific Proposal at all; it follows its own template and, for most ERC grants, its own timeline (typically due after grant agreement rather than assessed as part of the competitive Part I/Part II evaluation). Applicants and research offices tracking both requirements should treat them as distinct deliverables with distinct templates and deadlines. See CASRAI’s guide to ERC Data Management Plans under Horizon Europe for DMP-specific requirements, timeline, and template detail.
Frequently asked questions
Are B1 and B2 still valid terms for the ERC Scientific Proposal?
The underlying electronic submission forms are still called B1 and B2 in the ERC’s submission system, but the ERC’s own 2026 guidance refers to their content as Part I and Part II respectively. Expect both labels to appear in circulation for a transition period, with Part I/Part II being the terminology the ERC is now using in its official work programme and guidance documents.
Did the total page count for the Scientific Proposal go up or down?
Down, for Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced Grant applications: the pre-2026 B2 section alone ran up to roughly 14 pages, whereas the new Part I + Part II combined limit for those grant types is 12 pages (5 + 7). Synergy Grant applicants have a combined limit of 15 pages (5 + 10).
Does the new structure apply to every ERC call in 2026?
It applies to calls published under the ERC’s 2026 (and 2027) work programmes. Calls that opened under an earlier work programme, before the restructuring took effect, follow the template that was current when they opened. Confirm against the specific call document rather than assuming.
Where is feasibility now assessed if it’s not in Part I?
Feasibility is assessed in Step 2 of the ERC’s evaluation process, using both Part I and Part II together — not in Step 1, which now focuses on Part I plus the applicant’s CV/track record and is scoped to ambition and novelty of the idea rather than implementation feasibility.
Sources
- European Research Council: “Changes to the 2026 and 2027 Work Programmes”
- ERC Work Programme 2026 (European Commission, Funding & Tenders Portal)
This page tracks the ERC’s own published guidance on its 2026 proposal template restructuring. Always confirm current page limits and evaluation criteria against the specific call document and work programme in effect for your deadline before drafting.
