✓Done: Sign up
✓Done: Your startup
✓Done: Where you fit
✓Done: Buy credits
5Your pack

Sample pack · Ridgeline Materials (fictional)

Step 5 of 5 · Your pack

Check every answer, fill what is missing, then submit it yourself.

NSF SBIR/STTR — America's Seed Fund powered by NSF: your application

Ridgeline Materials, Inc. · drafted 10-08-2026 · 0 credits · edit and re-download until you delete it

Download PDF Draft another programme

Demo fixture generated 2026-10-08 by src/scripts/_co-gs-fixtures.mts with the built-in drafter.

Project Pitch (submitted first, in NSF's MyWork portal)

The Technology Innovation

Explain the core high-risk technical innovation to be researched and developed during a Phase I project. NSF must understand what research and development is required and how this technical innovation differs from and is significantly better than existing solutions. It may also be that the proposed innovation creates a new market. In this case, why will it be adopted? Describing features or benefits of the proposed technology is not sufficient.

196 / 500 characters

A low-temperature bonding chemistry that wets and binds chopped reclaimed fiber so the pressed part keeps most of the fiber’s stiffness and strength, at a processing cost below virgin-fiber parts.

Based on: solution

The Technical Objectives and Challenges

Clearly explain the specific research and development required to prove that the foundational technology works and address the associated challenges explicitly with a high level description of how each will be managed. This section must convey how the proposed work is technically innovative and demonstrate that you have an understanding of the core research and development tasks necessary to prove out the technical innovation.

60 / 500 characters

Missing: The Technical Objectives and Challenges

The Market Opportunity

Explain the value of the technological innovation including the potential uses and those who will benefit (who is the customer) and demonstrate a high-level understanding of the competitive landscape and why this innovation has the potential to compete.

43 / 750 characters

Missing: The Market Opportunity

The Company and Team

Explain the team's suitability to successfully execute the project based on the proposed innovation and approach to R&D. Provide information on plans to address gaps in the team.

320 / 750 characters

Dr. Elena Marsh (Co-founder and CEO; Principal Investigator): Polymer chemist with eight years in composites research and a PhD in materials science; leads the bonding-chemistry work. Tomas Reyes (Co-founder and CTO): Manufacturing engineer; spent six years on composite layup and press tooling at an aerospace supplier.

Based on: founders

Phase I full proposal (by invitation after the pitch; sections prescribed by NSF 26-510 and the Project Description instructions on seedfund.nsf.gov)

Project Summary: Overview

Written in the third person, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader; not an abstract of the proposal; no proprietary information. Describe the potential outcome(s) of the proposed activity in terms of a product, process or service. Provide a list of keywords or phrases that identify the areas of technical expertise to be invoked in reviewing the proposal and the areas of application that are the initial target of the technology. Provide the subtopic name.

A bonding chemistry that turns reclaimed carbon fiber into structural parts again.

Based on: one liner

Project Summary: Intellectual Merit

MUST begin with 'This Small Business Innovation Research (or Small Business Technology Transfer) Phase I project...'. Briefly describe the technical hurdle(s) that will be addressed by the proposed R&D (crucial to successful commercialization), the goals of the proposed R&D, and a high-level summary of the plan to reach those goals.

A bonding chemistry that turns reclaimed carbon fiber into structural parts again.

Based on: one liner

Project Summary: Broader Impacts

Two parts: (1) the direct impacts of this NSF-funded project on education, the environment, science, society, the nation and/or the world; (2) the potential commercial impact if the product or service launches successfully. For 'Commercial Potential', describe how the project brings the innovation closer to commercialization under a sustainable business model and the commercial and market impacts if successful.

A bonding chemistry that turns reclaimed carbon fiber into structural parts again.

Based on: one liner

Intellectual Merit

Project Description heading (recommend 7-10 pages, including the technical solution and the R&D plan). What is the proposed technical innovation and the new scientific/engineering insight behind it? What are the technical risks/barriers (go/no-go) and how does the proposal address them? Provide a detailed R&D plan with timeline, milestones, risk mitigation and quantitative success criteria; a generic set of tasks may result in the proposal being returned without review. Explain the significance of the Phase I milestones and how they relate to the commercial objectives.

Missing: Intellectual Merit

Company/Team

Project Description heading (recommend 1-2 pages). Date the company was founded and revenue history for the past three years, stating government funding and private investment explicitly. Founders and key participants, their level of effort in Phase I, and how their background builds credibility. Core competencies, evidence the team is committed to building a viable business, consultants or advisors, how the project fits existing operations, and your vision for the company over the next five years.

Based on: founders

Broader Impacts

Project Description heading (recommend 1-2 pages). The company's motivation for the project; how the technology will produce societal benefit, which communities benefit and on what timeline; how benefits will be measured and tracked; steps taken to recognise and minimise unintended consequences.

Missing: Broader Impacts

Commercialization Potential

Project Description heading (recommend 1-3 pages). Business model; initial target market, its size and how you validated the need; pathway to revenue and self-sustainability; value proposition; plans for regulatory, permitting, safety and ethical considerations; intellectual property strategy and why; competitive landscape and sustainable competitive advantage.

Missing: Commercialization Potential

References Cited

A comprehensive list of relevant references, including websites or URLs, patent numbers and other IP citations. If there are none, enter the statement 'no references cited'. URLs may not appear inside the Project Description.

Missing: References Cited

Budget Justification

Uploaded as a single PDF. Details for each nonzero budget line, identified by its line code (for example G.5 for subaward costs), with a description and cost estimates; named personnel, rates, time commitment and total salary; itemised materials; consultant letters of commitment ($1,000 per day maximum); subaward partner and work; indirect-cost calculation; fee calculation.

Missing: Budget Justification

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

Availability and location of significant equipment, instrumentation, computers and physical facilities needed for the portion of research done by the proposing firm. If not owned or leased by the firm, include a statement signed by the owner or lessor affirming availability, reasonable lease or rental costs and other associated costs.

Missing: Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

Data Management and Sharing Plan

A Research.gov module. NSF states it is acceptable and sufficient to check the box 'A detailed Data Management and Sharing Plan is not needed because the project will not produce data or research products, or for another reason that will require a justification' and give as justification: 'All data generated in this NSF SBIR/STTR project is considered proprietary.' More detail is optional.

Based on: founders

For you to add, in order 8

The Technical Objectives and Challenges: The Technical Objectives and Challenges
The Market Opportunity: The Market Opportunity
Intellectual Merit: Intellectual Merit
Broader Impacts: Broader Impacts
Commercialization Potential: Commercialization Potential
References Cited: References Cited
Budget Justification: Budget Justification
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources: Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

How this was drafted

The follow-up questions it asked the founder

The Technical Objectives and Challenges — what should the application say here?
Not answered, so the draft leaves a highlighted gap.
The Market Opportunity — what should the application say here?
Not answered, so the draft leaves a highlighted gap.
Intellectual Merit — what should the application say here?
Not answered, so the draft leaves a highlighted gap.
Broader Impacts — what should the application say here?
Not answered, so the draft leaves a highlighted gap.
Commercialization Potential — what should the application say here?
Not answered, so the draft leaves a highlighted gap.
References Cited — what should the application say here?
Not answered, so the draft leaves a highlighted gap.
Budget Justification (limit: 5 pages per Budget Justification (including subaward justifications)) — what should the application say here?
Not answered, so the draft leaves a highlighted gap.
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources — what should the application say here?
Not answered, so the draft leaves a highlighted gap.

How it reads against the published criteria

An estimate to help the founder improve the draft, not a prediction of selection.

Criterion	Estimate	Note
Impact	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Technological Innovation	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Market Pull	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Scale	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Suitability 1: Breakthrough Technical Innovation	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Suitability 2: Risky, Unproven Research & Development	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Suitability 3: Big Impact on Nation and Economy	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Suitability 4: Technological Defensibility	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Suitability 5: Commercial Potential	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Suitability 6: A Highly Qualified, Dedicated Team	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Merit review criterion 1: Intellectual Merit	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Merit review criterion 2: Broader Impacts	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.
Merit review criterion 3: Commercial Impact	— / —	Estimate from completeness only: 7 of 15 answers have no open input. No model has read the substance yet — your reviewer will when the drafting model is connected.

Where the questions come from

Section 1 (Project Pitch) is the four narrative fields on https://seedfund.nsf.gov/apply/project-pitch-information/, re-read 2026-10-08 via the local Firecrawl and identical to the 2026-10-01 reading; labels and character limits are NSF's. Section 2 (Phase I full proposal) is 'sections prescribed by' NSF 26-510: the Project Summary headings and limit come from https://seedfund.nsf.gov/solicitation-proposal/ and the Project Description headings, page limits and guidance from https://seedfund.nsf.gov/solicitation-project-description/ (Section A. Phase I), both read 2026-10-08; it applies only after NSF invites the company following a pitch. The nsf.gov copy of the solicitation is blocked to the crawler, so its facts (cap, size limit, PI rule, deadlines) were read through WebFetch on 2026-10-08. Published full-proposal deadlines: 4 November 2026, 4 March 2027 and 7 July 2027, 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time. The SBIR/STTR programs were extended to 30 September 2031 by Public Law 119-83 (13 April 2026).

Research.gov's Cover Sheet, SBIR/STTR Questionnaire (topic code, company officer, award history, affiliated companies, proprietary-information box, Project Pitch case number) and Phase I Certification Questions sit behind the Research.gov login. NSF describes them but they are not modelled here; the founder types them directly.
The Project Pitch itself is entered in NSF's MyWork portal. Anything that portal asks beyond the four narrative fields (company details, topic area, contacts) is behind the login and is not modelled.
Recommended page lengths inside the Project Description (7-10, 1-2, 1-2, 1-3 pages) are NSF guidance; the binding limits are 10 pages minimum and 15 pages maximum for the whole Project Description. NSF also says not every question under a heading must be answered.
NSF's no-VC-majority rule: a skeptic-pass web search on 2026-10-08 reports that NSF's own seedfund.nsf.gov eligibility page says NSF does not fund companies majority-owned by multiple venture capital, private equity or hedge funds (older solicitations said 'one or more'); the page itself was not fetchable, and the NSF 26-510 page does not restate it. Re-check before telling a VC-owned company it cannot apply.
Phase II, Fast-Track and the NSF 26-511 scientific-instrumentation pilot are not modelled. STTR needs a research-institution partner and a different budget split; only the differences quoted above are covered.
The detailed NSF 26-510 text on nsf.gov could not be crawled (region block); the PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 was not read. Where seedfund.nsf.gov and the PAPPG differ, NSF says the solicitation guidance takes precedence.
NSF's generative-AI notice for proposers is linked from the merit review page and was not re-read in full today; NSF holds the proposer responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of what is submitted.
The pitch carries no money; the $305,000 cap applies to the invited Phase I proposal. NSF typically replies to a pitch in about 1-2 months.
Documents are marked stage 'shortlist' because every attachment belongs to the invited full proposal; none is needed for the pitch.
Heading wording: seedfund.nsf.gov's Project Description page lists the first required heading as 'Intellectual Merit' in its table but 'Intellectual Merits' in the sentence listing required headers. The Project Summary instruction uses 'Intellectual Merit'. This draft uses 'Intellectual Merit'; check the exact header string in the solicitation before submitting.