test/VAULTMESH-ETERNAL-PATTERN/funding-roadmap/pqc-integration/partB/README.md

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

# 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)