Each scenario shows you how CRA thinks, what they’re trying to confirm, and how the way you answer (or document your work) can make or break your claim.
Tip: If your technical team, founders, or project managers might ever be in an audit meeting, have them review this section of the course and take the quiz too. It’s the best way to make sure your whole team speaks the same “SR&ED language” and understands what the SR&ED program is all about.
Please select the best answer that will support your claim. Here’s the first question from your CRA auditor:
Option B identifies a technological uncertainty and a systematic investigation, both required for SR&ED.
Option A only shows effort or difficulty, not experimentation, and would likely be considered routine engineering by CRA.
Option B demonstrates contemporaneous documentation — evidence created while the work occurred, which CRA values most.
Option A describes retroactive reconstruction, a common red flag that undermines credibility.
Option B provides traceable, verifiable evidence that supports the claim.
Option A sounds subjective and guess-based — CRA expects objective, recorded data, not year-end estimates. CRA is interested in knowing how you allocated time.
Option B shows direction and control, meaning the contractor worked under your supervision — a requirement for SR&ED eligibility.
Option A describes independent research, which would be the contractor’s own SR&ED, not yours.
Option B shows that team members understand what SR&ED work they performed and how it was documented.
Option A signals poor internal communication and weak documentation — a common audit killer.
Option B shows correct handling of government assistance.
Option A would be double-dipping — a major compliance issue that triggers reassessment.
Option B shows transparency and traceability — exactly what CRA wants to see.
By updating the technical report and providing a clear, consistent explanation, you demonstrate that all claimed costs are supported by documented SR&ED activities.
Option A, on the other hand, leaves a visible inconsistency between your technical and financial reports. CRA would question whether those extra wages were really related to SR&ED or regular production work.
Option B shows systematic investigation — forming hypotheses, testing variables, and analyzing results to uncover new knowledge about how materials behave.
Option A describes standardized quality testing, which verifies product performance but doesn’t generate new understanding.
The CRA’s real question here is: Were you experimenting to discover something new, or just confirming your product met known specs? Only the first qualifies as SR&ED.
Option B focuses on a technological uncertainty — a knowledge gap that required structured experimentation to resolve.
Option A confuses business constraints (deadlines, budget, lab time) with scientific or technological uncertainty. CRA reviewers often hear this and flag the claim, because SR&ED only supports technical challenges, not project management problems.
