# Part B — Technical Proposal (Draft Sections)

**Proposal:** Post-Quantum Cryptography Integration for EU Critical Infrastructure
**Call:** HORIZON-CL3-2025-CS-ECCC-06
**Budget:** €2.8M (€2.0M EU contribution)
**Submission Deadline:** 2025-12-15, 17:00 CET
**Status:** ✅ Complete — Ready for consortium review (Week 2-3, Nov 13-26)

---

## Overview

This directory contains **complete draft sections** for Part B (Technical Proposal), populated with content from the PQC Integration reviewer pack (Gantt chart, Risk Register, KPI Dashboard, Architecture Diagram).

Part B is divided into **3 main sections**, evaluated by EU reviewers for **100 points total**:

| Section | Title | Points | Page Limit | Status |
|---------|-------|--------|------------|--------|
| **Section 1** | Excellence | 30 points | ~15 pages | ✅ Complete (PartB_Excellence.md) |
| **Section 2** | Impact | 30 points | ~10 pages | ✅ Complete (PartB_Impact.md) |
| **Section 3** | Implementation | 40 points | ~20 pages | ✅ Complete (PartB_Implementation.md) |
| **References** | Bibliography | N/A | No limit | ⏳ To be compiled from all sections |

**Total Page Limit:** ≤50 pages (excluding references and annexes)

---

## Files in This Directory

### 1. PartB_Excellence.md (Section 1 — 30 points)

**Purpose:** Demonstrates scientific/technical quality, innovation, and methodology

**Key Content:**
- **1.1 Objectives:** Overall objective + 7 specific objectives (SO1-SO7) with measurable outcomes (TRL 4→6, 30% audit cost reduction, 50% faster incident detection)
- **1.2 Relation to Work Programme:** Point-by-point alignment with call topic ECCC-06, EU policy compliance (NIS2, DORA, GDPR)
- **1.3 Concept and Methodology:** Architecture diagram (PQC_Architecture_EU_Reviewer.mmd), 5 work packages (WP1-WP5) detailed, Gantt chart reference
- **1.4 Ambition:** 5 novel contributions beyond state-of-the-art, scientific impact (10+ publications, 5+ standards)

**Estimated Length:** ~15 pages (including Figure 1: Architecture Diagram, Figure 2: Gantt Chart)

**Next Steps:**
- Review by VaultMesh technical team (Week 2-3)
- Render architecture diagram to PNG (see parent README.md)
- Integrate feedback from Brno (PQC algorithm validation) and Cyber Trust (Ψ-Field methodology)

---

### 2. PartB_Impact.md (Section 2 — 30 points)

**Purpose:** Demonstrates societal/economic/scientific value and pathways to impact

**Key Content:**
- **2.1 Expected Outcomes:** Full KPI Dashboard table (18 KPIs), quantified societal impact (30% audit cost reduction, 50% faster incident detection), economic value (€348K pilot phase, €5.64M 3-year projection)
- **2.2 Measures to Maximize Impact:** Dissemination strategy (10+ publications, 3 workshops, 500+ downloads), exploitation plan (open-source Apache 2.0, community governance)
- **2.3 Barriers and Mitigation:** Technical barriers (NIST standards changes, Ψ-Field false positives), adoption barriers (competing solutions), regulatory barriers (GDPR, NIS2/DORA certification)
- **2.4 Sustainability:** Post-project sustainability plan (community governance, €50K+ revenue model, ETSI/IETF standards embedding)

**Estimated Length:** ~10 pages (including full KPI table)

**Next Steps:**
- Review by Cyber Trust (dissemination lead) and France Public (policy impact)
- Validate economic impact estimates with pilot sites (France, Czech, Greece)
- Cross-check KPI targets with PQC_KPI_Dashboard.md (ensure consistency)

---

### 3. PartB_Implementation.md (Section 3 — 40 points)

**Purpose:** Demonstrates project management, consortium quality, and resource efficiency

**Key Content:**
- **3.1 Work Plan & Resources:** Work package table (WP1-WP5), Gantt chart PNG reference, deliverable list (13 total), milestone table (5 major), effort allocation (112 PM), budget table (€2.8M breakdown)
- **3.2 Management Structure:** Organizational chart, steering committee procedures, reporting mechanisms (monthly internal, M12/M24 EU reports), quality assurance (deliverable peer review, external TRL audit)
- **3.3 Consortium as a Whole:** Partner complementarity table (VaultMesh, Brno, Cyber Trust, France Public), track records (H2020/Horizon Europe projects), gender balance (target 30%+ female)
- **3.4 Other Aspects:** Ethics (GDPR compliance, no human subjects), security measures (external audits, penetration testing), risk management (15 risks, €280K contingency, reference to Annex B)

**Estimated Length:** ~20 pages (including Gantt chart, work package tables, budget breakdown)

**Next Steps:**
- Review by all partners (Week 2-3) — each partner validates their sections
- Run budget_checker.py to validate budget allocations match consortium-tracker.csv
- Ensure consistency with PQC_Risk_Register.md (Annex B) and PQC_Work_Package_Gantt.mmd

---

## How to Use These Drafts

### For Consortium Review (Week 2-3, Nov 13-26)

**Step 1: Assign Section Leads (Per Partner)**

| Section | Lead Partner | Supporting Partners | Review Deadline |
|---------|--------------|---------------------|-----------------|
| **1.1-1.3 (Objectives, Methodology)** | VaultMesh (Karol + CTO) | Brno (PQC validation), Cyber Trust (Ψ-Field) | Nov 20 |
| **1.4 (Ambition, Open Science)** | VaultMesh | Brno (standards), France Public (policy) | Nov 20 |
| **2.1 (Expected Outcomes, KPIs)** | Cyber Trust | VaultMesh, France Public | Nov 22 |
| **2.2-2.3 (Impact Pathways, Barriers)** | France Public | Cyber Trust (dissemination), VaultMesh | Nov 22 |
| **3.1 (Work Plan & Resources)** | VaultMesh + Brno | All partners | Nov 24 |
| **3.2-3.3 (Management, Consortium)** | VaultMesh | All partners (review own track records) | Nov 24 |
| **3.4 (Ethics, Security, Risks)** | France Public (ethics/legal), VaultMesh (security) | All partners | Nov 26 |

**Step 2: Review Process**

1. **Individual Review (Nov 13-20):** Each partner reviews their assigned sections, adds comments/suggestions directly in Markdown files (use `<!-- COMMENT: ... -->` for inline notes)
2. **Steering Committee Call (Nov 21):** 2-hour call to discuss major comments, resolve conflicts, approve revisions
3. **Revisions (Nov 22-26):** Section leads incorporate feedback, update drafts
4. **Final Approval (Nov 26):** Steering committee approves final versions for integration into PDF

**Step 3: Integration into PDF (Week 4, Nov 27 - Dec 3)**

1. Combine all 3 sections into single LaTeX document (IEEE style template)
2. Insert diagrams:
   - **Figure 1 (Architecture):** PQC_Architecture_EU_Reviewer.png (in Section 1.3)
   - **Figure 2 (Gantt Chart):** PQC_Work_Package_Gantt.png (in Section 3.1)
3. Format references (IEEE style, 30-50 key citations)
4. Generate PDF/A (archival format), verify <10 MB file size
5. Run spell check (UK English), grammar check (Grammarly)

---

## Cross-References to Other Materials

### PQC Integration Reviewer Pack (Parent Directory)

These Part B sections integrate content from:

| File | Referenced In | Purpose |
|------|---------------|---------|
| **PQC_Work_Package_Gantt.mmd** | Section 3.1 | Visual timeline for work plan (Figure 2) |
| **PQC_Risk_Register.md** | Sections 1.3, 2.3, 3.4 | Risk mitigation strategies (Annex B) |
| **PQC_KPI_Dashboard.md** | Sections 1.1, 2.1 | Quantitative targets (18 KPIs table) |
| **PQC_Architecture_EU_Reviewer.mmd** | Section 1.3 | Technical architecture (Figure 1) |
| **PQC_Submission_Checklist.md** | All sections | Formatting/compliance verification |

### Consortium Materials (Sibling Directory)

Budget and partner data validated against:

| File | Referenced In | Purpose |
|------|---------------|---------|
| **consortium-tracker.csv** | Section 3.1, 3.3 | Budget allocations, person-months, LOI status |
| **Partner_Onboarding_Kit_1pager.md** | Section 3.3 | Partner value propositions |
| **PROOF_CHAIN.md** | Annex A | Cryptographic governance (unique differentiator) |

---

## Validation Checklist (Before Final Submission)

### Content Validation

- [ ] **Objectives (1.1):** All 7 specific objectives (SO1-SO7) have measurable targets matching KPI Dashboard
- [ ] **Methodology (1.3):** All 5 work packages (WP1-WP5) described with tasks, deliverables, timelines
- [ ] **KPI Table (2.1):** 18 KPIs match PQC_KPI_Dashboard.md exactly (no discrepancies)
- [ ] **Budget Table (3.1):** Totals sum to €2.8M, percentages sum to 100%, matches consortium-tracker.csv
- [ ] **Deliverables (3.1):** 13 deliverables listed with correct months, dissemination levels (12 Public, 1 Confidential)
- [ ] **Risk References (3.4):** Top 3 risks (R01, R04, R08) cited correctly, match PQC_Risk_Register.md scores
- [ ] **Gantt Chart (Figure 2):** Rendered PNG includes all 5 WPs, 13 deliverables, 5 milestones

### Cross-Section Consistency

- [ ] **TRL Progression:** Consistently stated as "TRL 4→6" across Sections 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1
- [ ] **Pilot Sites:** Consistently listed as "France, Czech Republic, Greece" (not "FR, CZ, GR" or other variants)
- [ ] **Budget Total:** Same value (€2.8M total, €2.0M EU contribution) in Sections 1.1, 2.1, 3.1
- [ ] **Timeline:** Consistently "24 months" across all sections
- [ ] **Partner Names:** Exactly match consortium-tracker.csv (e.g., "Masaryk University" not "Univ Brno")

### Formatting Validation

- [ ] **Font:** Arial 11pt minimum, single-spaced
- [ ] **Margins:** 2cm all sides
- [ ] **Page Numbers:** Bottom center, continuous from Section 1 through References
- [ ] **Section Headings:** Consistent formatting (bold, Arial 14pt for main sections, 12pt for subsections)
- [ ] **Figures:** Captioned as "Figure X: [Title]" with consistent numbering
- [ ] **Tables:** Captioned as "Table X: [Title]" with consistent numbering
- [ ] **References:** IEEE style, numbered [1], [2], etc., alphabetical by author

---

## Budget Validation (Run Before Submission)

### Using budget_checker.py Script

```bash
# Navigate to scripts directory
cd ~/vaultmesh-core/funding-roadmap/scripts/

# Run budget checker
python3 budget_checker.py

# Expected output if all checks pass:
# 🎉 ALL CHECKS PASSED — Budget ready for submission!
```

**What the checker validates:**
1. Total budget = €2,800,000 (±2% tolerance)
2. Total person-months = 104-112 PM (baseline to buffered)
3. Per-partner budget % matches expected distribution (VaultMesh 70.4%, Brno 10%, Cyber Trust 12.5%, France 7.1%)
4. LOI status for all partners (Confirmed/Signed/Sent)

**If checks fail:**
- Update consortium-tracker.csv with corrected values
- Re-run budget_checker.py
- Update Part B Section 3.1 budget table if changes made
- Notify steering committee if reallocation >€20K required (75% vote needed)

---

## Reviewer Perspective (What Makes Part B Strong)

### Excellence (Section 1) — 30 Points

**Strong if:**
- ✅ Clear innovation beyond state-of-the-art (5 novel contributions in Section 1.4)
- ✅ Realistic TRL progression (TRL 4→6 validated by external audit)
- ✅ Systematic methodology (5 WPs with dependencies shown in Gantt chart)
- ✅ Risk awareness (15 identified risks, not naive optimism)

**Weak if:**
- ❌ Vague objectives ("we will contribute to...") instead of measurable targets
- ❌ No differentiation from existing PQC solutions (why VaultMesh vs. competitors?)
- ❌ Overly ambitious (TRL 4→9 in 24 months = not credible)

### Impact (Section 2) — 30 Points

**Strong if:**
- ✅ Quantified outcomes (30% cost reduction, not "significant savings")
- ✅ Concrete dissemination plan (10+ publications with target venues listed)
- ✅ Post-project sustainability (community governance, €50K+ revenue model)
- ✅ Barriers identified and mitigated (competing solutions, GDPR compliance)

**Weak if:**
- ❌ No economic analysis (how much do beneficiaries save?)
- ❌ Vague dissemination ("we will present at conferences" without naming venues)
- ❌ No sustainability plan (project ends M24, then what?)

### Implementation (Section 3) — 40 Points

**Strong if:**
- ✅ Realistic work plan (deliverables evenly distributed, not all at M24)
- ✅ Complementary consortium (VaultMesh tech + Brno research + Cyber Trust pilots + France policy)
- ✅ Proactive risk management (monthly reviews, €280K contingency allocated)
- ✅ Track record (Brno: H2020 SECREDAS, Cyber Trust: CONCORDIA)

**Weak if:**
- ❌ Unbalanced budget (1 partner >80%, others <5% = coordination failure risk)
- ❌ No risk register (or trivial risks like "delays may occur")
- ❌ Weak consortium (no relevant expertise, no prior EU projects)

---

## Next Steps (Timeline)

### Week 2-3 (Nov 13-26) — Consortium Review

- [ ] Distribute Part B drafts to all partners (Nov 13)
- [ ] Partners review assigned sections, add comments (Nov 13-20)
- [ ] Steering committee review call (Nov 21, 2 hours)
- [ ] Section leads revise based on feedback (Nov 22-26)
- [ ] Final steering approval (Nov 26)

### Week 4 (Nov 27 - Dec 3) — PDF Integration

- [ ] Combine sections into LaTeX document (Nov 27-29)
- [ ] Render diagrams (Gantt, Architecture) to PNG (Nov 28)
- [ ] Insert figures, format references (IEEE style) (Nov 29-30)
- [ ] Generate PDF/A, verify <10 MB file size (Dec 1)
- [ ] Spell/grammar check (UK English) (Dec 2)
- [ ] Consortium final approval (Dec 3)

### Week 5 (Dec 4-10) — Annexes & Admin Docs

- [ ] Annex A: PROOF_CHAIN.md (convert to PDF)
- [ ] Annex B: PQC_Risk_Register.md (convert to PDF)
- [ ] Annex C: Data Management Plan (create, 3 pages)
- [ ] Annex D: Partner CVs (2-page EU format, collect from partners)
- [ ] Annex E: Letters of Commitment (if pilot sites not full partners)
- [ ] Annex F: Gender Equality Plan (if required)
- [ ] Administrative documents (per partner): Legal Entity Forms, Financial Statements

### Week 6 (Dec 11-15) — Final Submission Sprint

- [ ] **Dec 11 (5pm):** Proposal freeze (version control locked)
- [ ] **Dec 12:** Upload to EU portal (Part A + Part B + Annexes)
- [ ] **Dec 13:** Fix validation errors
- [ ] **Dec 14:** Final review by coordinator
- [ ] **Dec 15 (before 5pm CET):** **SUBMIT** 🎉

---

## Document Control

- **Version:** 1.0-PART-B-COMPLETE
- **Date:** 2025-11-06
- **Owner:** VaultMesh Technologies B.V. (Coordinator)
- **Classification:** Consortium Internal (Part B Draft Material)
- **Related Files:** PQC_Work_Package_Gantt.mmd, PQC_Risk_Register.md, PQC_KPI_Dashboard.md, PQC_Architecture_EU_Reviewer.mmd, consortium-tracker.csv

---

**Status:** ✅ All 3 Part B sections complete — Ready for consortium review (Week 2-3, Nov 13-26)