From Concept to Claim: Writing Technical Narratives That Pass CRA Scrutiny

Introduction

When CRA reviews an SR&ED claim, much of their decision pivots on the technical narrative. The narrative connects your scientific/technical work to your claimed costs. If it’s vague, misaligned with evidence, or logically weak, your claim may be adjusted or denied.

In this post, we provide a blueprint for crafting defensive, persuasive narratives that withstand scrutiny—and tips for responding to questions.

‍

Narrative Blueprint: The Flow

1. Problem / Technological Uncertainty
   
   • What was unknown? What prevented you from reaching your goal via standard methods?
2. Hypothesis / Proposed Approach
   
   • What did you expect? What assumptions guided your design?
3. Experimentation & Iterations
   
   • What tests did you run? What parameters did you vary? What changed across versions?
4. Results & Analysis
   
   • Data outcomes: successes, failures, inconclusive runs
   • Insights gained and decisions made
5. Advancement & Learning
   
   • How did the project push forward the state of knowledge or capability?
   • Even negative results show you learned boundaries
6. Cost Linkage
   
   • Map labour, materials, subcontractor, overhead to specific experiments
   • Explain allocation logic
7. Evidence References
   
   • Cross-reference test logs, change logs, meeting minutes

Language & Style Advice

• Avoid vague verbals: “we improved,” “we optimized.”
• Use precise numeric metrics (error rate, accuracy change)
• Use consistent terms (don’t switch “model” vs “architecture” mid narrative)
• Keep paragraphs concise, use headings and bullets
• Use illustrations: flow charts, parameter tables, test outcome graphs

Handling Incremental Advances

CRA often questions whether improvements were trivial. To counter this:

• Emphasize the uncertainty and why off-the-shelf or known techniques didn’t suffice
• Show experiment iterations (failed + learned)
• Frame constraints (latency, power, thermal) as forces pushing design complexity

Responding to CRA Clarifications

If they ask for more detail:

• Provide additional logs or data tables
• Supply annotated experiment comparisons
• Clarify pivot decisions with meeting notes or emails
• Supply a mapping between questions, experiments, and cost attribution

‍

Narrative Checklist

‍

Example Snapshot

An IoT firm claimed R&D on a sensor fusion algorithm. Their narrative clearly set out uncertainty (no prior data on noise fusion under high latency), hypotheses (three fusion architectures), experiments (10 variant runs at different noise levels), outcomes (error curves, failure modes), and learning. When CRA asked for logs, the firm supplied versioned test outputs. Only a minor portion was adjusted.

‍

‍How GovMoney Can Help

GovMoney offers narrative review & coaching—we refine your draft, align it with cost schedules, flag weak links, and train your technical teams to produce stronger narratives from the get-go.