test/VAULTMESH-ETERNAL-PATTERN/funding-roadmap/pqc-integration

PQC Integration — Reviewer-Ready Pack

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: ✅ Reviewer materials complete (2025-11-06)

---

Overview

This directory contains EU reviewer-ready materials for the PQC Integration proposal — the critical components needed for Part B sections (Excellence, Impact, Implementation) and submission to the EU Funding & Tenders Portal.

Distinction from parent funding-roadmap/ directory:

• Parent directory: Strategic coordination (consortium materials, Treasury Nebula, genesis receipts)
• This directory: Tactical execution (proposal-specific documents for EU reviewers)

---

Files in This Directory

1. PQC_Work_Package_Gantt.mmd (Mermaid Gantt Chart)

Purpose: Visual timeline for Part B Section 3.1 (Work Plan & Resources) Content:

• 5 work packages (WP1-5) across 24 months
• 13 deliverables with dependencies
• 5 major milestones (M0, M6, M12, M18, M24)
• Critical path highlighted (integration points)

Usage:

# Render to PNG for Part B
mmdc -i PQC_Work_Package_Gantt.mmd -o gantt.png -w 2000 -b white
# Include in Part B Section 3.1 as Figure 2

---

2. PQC_Risk_Register.md (15 Identified Risks)

Purpose: Part B Section 3.4 (Other Aspects) and Annex B Content:

• 15 risks across technical, organizational, financial, external categories
• Likelihood × Impact scoring (weighted average: 2.9/9 = MODERATE)
• Specific mitigation strategies mapped to WPs and owners
• €280K contingency budget (10%) with allocation plan
• Monthly review process embedded in consortium governance

Key risks:

• R01: NIST PQC standards change (Score: 4)
• R04: Pilot site deployment delays (Score: 4)
• R08: Ψ-Field false positives (Score: 4)

Reviewer impact: Shows systematic risk management, not naive optimism

---

3. PQC_KPI_Dashboard.md (18 Quantitative KPIs)

Purpose: Part B Section 2.1 (Pathways to Impact) Content:

• Excellence KPIs: TRL 4→6, 10+ publications, 5+ standards drafts
• Impact KPIs: 30% audit cost reduction, 50% faster incident detection, 500+ downloads, 15+ federation nodes
• Implementation KPIs: 100% deliverable on-time, ≤10% budget variance, ≥90% steering attendance

Format: Table with baseline, target (M24), verification method, measurement frequency

Reviewer impact: Demonstrates concrete, measurable outcomes (not vague claims)

---

4. PQC_Architecture_EU_Reviewer.mmd (Sanitized Technical Diagram)

Purpose: Part B Section 1.3 (Methodology) as Figure 1 Content:

• Removed "Rubedo/alchemical" language (kept in parent directory)
• EU-friendly annotations (call topic alignment, policy compliance)
• Shows: Current state (TRL 4) → Hybrid transition (TRL 5) → PQC target (TRL 6)
• VaultMesh core components (LAWCHAIN, Ψ-Field, Federation, Receipts)
• External anchors (TSA, Ethereum, Bitcoin)
• 3 pilot sites (France, Czech, Greece)

Usage:

# Render to PNG for Part B
mmdc -i PQC_Architecture_EU_Reviewer.mmd -o architecture.png -w 2500 -b white
# Include in Part B Section 1.3 as Figure 1

---

5. PQC_Submission_Checklist.md (Complete Submission Guide)

Purpose: Coordinator's step-by-step reference for Dec 11-15 submission sprint Content:

• Pre-submission checklist (Part A, Part B, Annexes, Admin Docs, Consortium Agreement)
• EU portal mandatory fields verification
• File format & size requirements (PDF/A, <10 MB per file)
• Timeline: Dec 11 (freeze) → Dec 12 (upload) → Dec 13 (validation) → Dec 14 (review) → Dec 15 (submit)
• Post-submission actions (debrief, lessons learned, archive)

Critical sections:

• Budget sanity check (must sum to exactly 100%)
• Person-month sanity check (4.3 FTE avg over 24 months)
• Deliverable cadence check (13 deliverables over 24 months = ~1 every 2 months)

---

How These Files Integrate with Part B

Part B Section 1 — Excellence (30 points)

1.1 Objectives:

• Use KPI Dashboard (E1-E3) to define measurable objectives
• "Achieve TRL 6 validation across 3 pilot sites (France, Czech, Greece)"
• "Integrate 3 NIST PQC algorithms (Kyber, Dilithium, SPHINCS+)"
• "Publish 10+ papers in top-tier venues, submit 5+ standards drafts"

1.2 Relation to Work Programme:

• Reference Architecture Diagram (Figure 1) showing call topic alignment
• Map WP1-WP5 to call expected outcomes

1.3 Methodology:

• Insert Gantt Chart (Figure 2) showing 24-month timeline
• Reference Risk Register: "15 identified risks with mitigation strategies (Annex B)"
• Architecture Diagram shows TRL progression visually

1.4 Open Science:

• Reference KPI I3 (Adoption): "Target 500+ open-source downloads post-M24"

---

Part B Section 2 — Impact (30 points)

2.1 Pathways to Impact:

• Insert full KPI Dashboard table (18 KPIs)
• Societal: "30% audit cost reduction, 50% faster incident detection"
• Economic: "€100K+ cost savings per organization via cryptographic governance"
• Scientific: "10+ publications, 5+ standards contributions"
• Policy: "NIS2/DORA compliance, EU digital sovereignty"

2.2 Measures to Maximize Impact:

• Reference KPI I3 (Adoption): dissemination channels, target audiences
• "Open-source under Apache 2.0, community governance post-project"

2.3 IPR Management:

• "All foreground IP under Apache 2.0 (open-source)"
• "Background IP: VaultMesh existing codebase (Apache 2.0)"

---

Part B Section 3 — Implementation (40 points)

3.1 Work Plan & Resources:

• Insert Gantt Chart as Figure 2 (PQC_Work_Package_Gantt.mmd)
• Work package table (WP1-5 with lead, person-months, budget)
• Deliverable list (13 deliverables from Gantt)
• Milestone table (5 major milestones: M0, M6, M12, M18, M24)

3.2 Management Structure:

• Reference Risk Register: "Monthly risk review in steering committee"
• "Quality assurance: external TRL audit at M12 and M24"

3.3 Consortium as a Whole:

• Partner complementarity table (from parent directory consortium/consortium-tracker.csv)
• Track record: cite H2020/Horizon Europe projects if partners have them

3.4 Other Aspects:

• Reference Risk Register (Annex B): "15 identified risks, weighted average score 2.9/9 (MODERATE)"
• "€280K contingency budget (10%) with allocation plan"
• Ethics: "GDPR compliance for pilot data, no human subjects"

---

Part B Annexes (Include These Files)

Annex A: Cryptographic Proof-of-Governance

• Source: ../PROOF_CHAIN.md
• Purpose: Demonstrate VaultMesh's unique proof-driven coordination
• Reviewer impact: Differentiates from competitors, shows systematic rigor

Annex B: Risk Register

• Source: PQC_Risk_Register.md
• Purpose: Detailed risk mitigation strategies
• Reviewer impact: Shows proactive management (positive for Implementation score)

Annex C: Data Management Plan

• Source: (to be created) PQC_Data_Management_Plan.md
• Purpose: FAIR data principles, open access publications

Annex D: Partner CVs

• Source: Collect from partners (2-page EU format)
• Purpose: Demonstrate expertise (2-3 key personnel per partner)

Annex E: Letters of Commitment

• Source: (if pilot sites are not full partners) — France, Czech, Greece
• Purpose: Confirm pilot site availability

Annex F: Gender Equality Plan

• Source: (if required by call) — reference institutional policies
• Purpose: EU cross-cutting priority

---

Rendering Diagrams for Part B

Option 1: Online (Mermaid Live Editor)

# Copy diagram content
cat PQC_Work_Package_Gantt.mmd | pbcopy  # macOS
# Open https://mermaid.live/
# Paste → Export PNG (2000px width, white background)

Option 2: Command-Line (mermaid-cli)

# Install once
npm install -g @mermaid-js/mermaid-cli

# Render Gantt chart
mmdc -i PQC_Work_Package_Gantt.mmd -o gantt.png -w 2000 -b white

# Render architecture diagram
mmdc -i PQC_Architecture_EU_Reviewer.mmd -o architecture.png -w 2500 -b white

# Result: High-res PNGs ready for Part B

---

Timeline: Using These Materials (Nov 6 - Dec 15)

Week 1 (Nov 6-12) — Consortium Alignment

• Reviewer materials created ✅ COMPLETE
• Share Gantt, Risk Register, KPI Dashboard with partners
• Conduct consortium kickoff call (discuss WP assignments)

Week 2-3 (Nov 13-26) — Part B Drafting

• VaultMesh: Draft Section 1 (Excellence) using Architecture Diagram + KPIs
• Cyber Trust: Draft Section 2 (Impact) using KPI Dashboard
• VaultMesh + Univ Brno: Draft Section 3 (Implementation) using Gantt + Risk Register
• Render diagrams to PNG for inclusion

Week 4-5 (Nov 27 - Dec 10) — Internal Review

• Steering committee reviews full Part B draft
• Partners provide feedback on their sections
• Integrate changes, finalize budget table
• Consortium agreement signed (Dec 8)

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

• Dec 11 (5pm): Proposal freeze (no more edits)
• Dec 12: Upload to EU portal (Part A + Part B + Annexes)
• Dec 13: Fix any validation errors
• Dec 14: Final review by coordinator
• Dec 15 (before 5pm CET): SUBMIT

---

Quality Assurance

Internal Peer Review (Week 4-5)

• Each partner reviews sections they're not lead on
• External reviewer (optional): former EU evaluator reviews Part B (€1K budget)
• Spell check (UK English), grammar check
• References formatted consistently

EU Portal Validation (Dec 12-13)

• All mandatory fields filled (green checkmarks)
• Budget sums to exactly 100%
• File sizes <10 MB (Part B) and <5 MB (each annex)
• PDF/A format (archival quality)

Final Sanity Checks (Dec 14)

• Budget: VaultMesh 70.4%, Brno 10%, Cyber Trust 12.5%, France 7.1% = 100% ✓
• Person-months: 104 PM total = 4.3 FTE avg over 24 months ✓
• Deliverables: 13 total, evenly distributed across 24 months ✓
• KPIs: 18 quantitative targets with verification methods ✓
• Risks: 15 identified, 0 high-risk (score ≥6), €280K contingency ✓

---

Success Criteria

Reviewer materials are strong if:

• ✅ Gantt chart shows realistic timeline (not overly aggressive, not too conservative)
• ✅ Risk register identifies genuine risks (not trivial), with concrete mitigations (not vague)
• ✅ KPIs are measurable (not "we will contribute to...") and ambitious but achievable
• ✅ Architecture diagram is clear (reviewers understand in 30 seconds)
• ✅ Submission checklist prevents last-minute errors (all mandatory fields filled)

Proposal is strong if:

• 🎯 Excellence: Clear innovation beyond state-of-the-art, TRL 4→6 credible
• 🎯 Impact: Quantified outcomes (30% cost reduction, 10+ publications, 5+ standards)
• 🎯 Implementation: Realistic work plan, experienced consortium, proactive risk management
• 🎯 Differentiation: PROOF_CHAIN.md (Annex A) positions VaultMesh as unique trust anchor

Estimated evaluation score: 13-14/15 points (threshold: 12) → High funding probability (70-80%)

---

Contact & Support

Coordinator:

• Karol Stefanski (VaultMesh Guardian)
• Email: guardian@vaultmesh.org
• Role: Part B integration, EU portal submission, consortium coordination

Section Leads:

• VaultMesh: Part B Section 1 (Excellence), Section 3 (Implementation)
• Cyber Trust: Part B Section 2 (Impact)
• Univ Brno: Part B Section 3 (Implementation, co-lead with VaultMesh)

Steering Committee:

• Weekly check-ins (30 min) — review progress, resolve blockers
• Emergency calls (if critical issues) — within 24h response time

---

Related Directories

Parent: ~/vaultmesh-core/funding-roadmap/ (strategic coordination)

• Treasury Nebula Map (meta-visualization of all 8 proposals)
• Genesis Receipt (Merkle-rooted proof-of-governance)
• Consortium tracker (14 partners across 4 proposals)
• Partner onboarding kit, LOI templates

Sibling (future): digital-twins/, genai-health/ (similar reviewer packs for other proposals)

---

Lessons Learned (Post-Submission)

What worked well:

• (To be filled after Dec 15 submission)

What could improve:

• (To be filled after Dec 15 submission)

Apply to Digital Twins (Jan 20 deadline):

• (To be filled after PQC submission)

---

Document Control:

• Version: 1.0-REVIEWER-PACK
• Date: 2025-11-06
• Owner: VaultMesh Technologies B.V. (Coordinator)
• Classification: Consortium Internal (Critical Reference)
• Status: ✅ Complete — Ready for Part B drafting (Week 2-3)