So you can get to a strong application faster, here are the most common mistakes — plus concrete countermeasures for each.
How your application is typically assessed
Many applications are filtered out before the details are even evaluated. There are typically three levels:
- →Formal and substantive minimum requirements (admissibility, eligibility)
- →Quality assessment based on award criteria — often with external experts
- →Checks for double funding and, if necessary, additional verification
Important: If an application fails on a mandatory criterion, the rest is often no longer fully assessed. Getting the basics right is not optional.
The 10 most common mistakes
1
Clarifying registration, OID/PIC, and organisational data too late
Your solution
The OID/PIC is missing, created twice, or inconsistent — or roles and contact persons are maintained incorrectly. This is surprisingly common and can disqualify an otherwise strong application.
- ✓Clarify early whether you need an OID (decentralised actions) or a PIC (centralised actions)
- ✓Check whether your organisation is already registered — avoid duplicate registrations
- ✓Plan roles properly: Legal Representative and Primary Contact Person are expected at a minimum; one person may hold multiple roles
- ✓Keep a second reachable contact option available — this is often required in practice
2
Eligibility is 'overlooked'
Your solution
The project broadly fits, but one detail doesn't: activity type, duration, target group, country logic, or a minimum requirement. Assessment can stop at the eligibility stage.
- →Create a one-page eligibility checklist drawn directly from the Call and Programme Guide
- →Check every point strictly against your text — not against your gut feeling
- →Have someone unfamiliar with the project run through the checklist independently
3
Relevance remains a claim
Your solution
"The project is important" — but without a clear connection to programme objectives, needs, and target groups, evaluators cannot award points for relevance.
- →Describe the need in three sentences: problem → target group → consequence
- →Explicitly link this to the assessment criteria used (e.g., "relevance") — in many procedures this is scored as a separate criterion
- →Support claims with data: Eurostat figures, national statistics, or published research
4
Objectives are not measurable
Your solution
Objectives sound good but are not verifiable. Or objectives, results, and activities simply do not align. In practice, indicators are one of the most consistently weak spots in KA2 applications.
- →Use a clear logic: activities → results/outputs → impact/outcomes
- →Define 1–3 indicators per result — measurable and time-bound
- →Avoid vague language like "raise awareness" or "improve understanding" without specifying how this will be measured
5
Work packages are illogical or underspecified
Your solution
Work packages read like chapter headings. What's missing are deliverables, responsibilities, and a timeline. The quality of the work plan and the logic of resource allocation are explicitly assessed criteria.
For each work package, specify:
- ✓Objective and expected result
- ✓Planned activities
- ✓Concrete deliverables
- ✓Responsible organisation
- ✓Milestones and timing
6
The lump-sum budget doesn't match the project logic
Your solution
The budget is "somehow plausible," but the breakdown per work package doesn't reflect the actual effort and outputs planned. Note: shifts between work packages may later require a formal contract amendment.
- →Structure the budget into the same coherent work packages used in the work plan
- →Clearly describe which activities each work package covers
- →Show the lump-sum allocation per work package and per partner
- →Make sure the proportions make sense — coordination should not consume 80% of the budget
7
The consortium looks like a list of names
Your solution
Partners are "good," but their added value isn't articulated. Roles overlap. Tasks aren't cleanly divided. Clear division of tasks and active contributions are explicitly expected in many actions.
For each partner, describe:
- ✓Specific expertise aligned with their assigned tasks
- ✓Concrete responsibilities within each work package
- ✓Contribution to project results — not just participation
8
Mandatory annexes are missing or unclear
Your solution
Mandates and Accession Forms are missing, signatures are unclear, or evidence is inconsistent. In some procedures, clarification may be requested for obvious errors — but you should not rely on this.
- →Create an attachments checklist and work through it systematically
- →Plan an internal document freeze 72 hours before submission
- →Check that all partner signatures match the legal representative on record
9
Originality and authorship are worded riskily
Your solution
Text blocks look copied or AI-generated, or it's unclear who drafted the application. Declaration on honour requirements may include confirming that content is original and that no external party was paid to write the application — depending on the procedure.
- →Write consistently in your organisation's logic and voice throughout the application
- →Read the Declaration on Honour carefully — understand exactly what you are certifying
- →If AI tools are used for drafting, ensure the final text reflects genuine organisational intent and is thoroughly reviewed
10
Impact is confused with dissemination
Your solution
"We will disseminate the results via social media." Full stop. This is one of the most serious conceptual mistakes in Erasmus+ applications — and evaluators spot it immediately.
Dissemination describes how you spread your results. Impact describes what actually changes because your project exists. These are different questions, and the impact section must answer the second one.
What impact really means
Impact refers to the concrete and sustainable effects of your project at three levels:
| Level | Key questions |
|---|
| Individual | What competences do participants gain? Does behaviour change? Are professional opportunities improved? |
| Organisational | Are processes adapted? Are new methods integrated into regular practice? Does cooperation continue beyond the project? |
| Systemic | Does the project influence regional or national strategies? Are results transferable to other institutions? Does it contribute to broader European priorities? |
Dissemination and visibility are essential — they are often contractual obligations under the grant agreement. But they are tools that support impact, not a substitute for it.
In the impact section: Answer this specific question: What will be different after the project — for individuals, organisations, and the wider system? A strong application demonstrates lasting change, not just communication outputs.
Mini checklist before clicking "Submit"
- ✓OID/PIC is correct and consistent across all forms
- ✓Roles and contact persons are properly maintained
- ✓Eligibility is fully checked off against the Programme Guide
- ✓Need → objectives → activities → results form a coherent logical chain
- ✓Indicators are measurable and time-bound
- ✓Work packages include deliverables, dates, and responsibilities
- ✓Lump-sum breakdown fits the work plan logic
- ✓Partner roles are clear, distinct, and necessary
- ✓All annexes are final, signed, and consistent
- ✓Impact section goes beyond dissemination and describes verifiable change
Conclusion
A successful Erasmus+ application is rarely complicated — but it is almost always consistently well thought through. Rejections usually stem not from the idea itself, but from a lack of eligibility clarity, weak internal logic between needs, objectives, activities, and results, or a work plan that is not verifiable.
Make it easy for evaluators to say "yes": ensure your application is clear, consistent, and traceable from start to finish.