Each example comes from a real-world scenario—see if you can spot which ones would impress CRA (“Nailed it”), and which would raise red flags (“Failed it”).
❌ Failed It. This describes a business goal, not a technical uncertainty. CRA wants to know what was unknown—for instance, whether sensors could accurately measure soil conductivity under varying humidity conditions.
✅ Nailed It. This identifies a genuine scientific uncertainty, supported by context (no known data). It’s clear, specific, and technical—exactly what CRA expects.
✅ Nailed It. This clearly demonstrates a planned, structured investigation. The team didn’t just “try things” — they designed controlled tests, analyzed the data after each, and refined their approach based on measurable results. That’s systematic experimentation, not routine “trial and error” work.
(If the manufacturer was simply following a known welding standard or using parameters published in an industry guide, that’s routine work. But if they’re exploring new temperature thresholds or stress behaviors not covered in existing literature or procedures, it becomes SR&ED-eligible investigation. The narrative is is written to show learning and analysis, not just effort or repetition — that’s what makes CRA view it as eligible R&D activity.)
❌ Failed It. “Debugging” alone isn’t SR&ED unless there’s an unknown cause being tested systematically. This just shows persistence, not structured investigation.
✅ Nailed It. A strong statement of technical uncertainty with measurable context. CRA reviewers can clearly see the unknown, the risk, and why testing was needed.
✅ Nailed It. It highlights new knowledge gained through testing—a perfect example of technological advancement. It’s factual, specific, and avoids marketing language.
❌ Failed It. Too vague. “Adjusted several times” doesn’t show structure or analysis. CRA expects a methodical approach—what you changed, why, and what you observed.
✅ Nailed It. This shows a planned, hypothesis-driven investigation that led to new technical knowledge — not just product improvement. The structured tests, clear question, and documented analysis demonstrate both systematic work and technological advancement.
Note that they included two important points 1) it was a structured series of tests that was based on a hypothesis (electrode placement affecting signal clarity and 2) there was knowledge gained (new mapping method). Show that it wasn’t routine validation or a one-time accidental discovery – the work followed the scientific method.
