In simple words, what in 2025 will be known as Pathfinder Open?

A bottom-top, high-risk/high-gain tool of radically new science-to-technology breakthrough. No predefined topics. When your idea has a conceivable possibility of putting you down a new technological path, not a neatly groomed incremental fix, but a new path, you are in this category. The early TRL (at the center of gravity TRL 1-2 -TRL 3-4 end) is the center of gravity.

Who could apply – individual teams or consortia?

Both. Single beneficiaries are permitted, and compact interdisciplinary consortia are common. The legal minimum when coming together is three independent entities of three associated EU Member States or Associated Countries; however, successful teams tend to remain lean (usually 3-7 beneficiaries) and have non-duplicated roles.

How are costs funded?

Grants are reimbursed at 100% of eligible direct costs and a 25% flat rate for indirects. That has been a rule of thumb even in Pathfinder Open. Budget credibility is more important than size: assessors seek resources closely aligned with the milestones in risk reduction, not wish lists.

What progress in TRL can and indeed must we guarantee?

Initiate with a justifiable idea and get out with an approved laboratory prototype or dataset that demonstrates the idea in plausible conditions – i.e., strong TRL 3-4. When you are already brushing TRL 5, ask yourself whether a different EIC tool would be more suitable; conversely, purely theoretical research with no implementation strategy will not work.

Which categories of ideas do you think are on-target in Open (as opposed to Challenge)?

Frontier ideas capable of germinating a new field: non-conventional computing or control, micro- and bio-hybrid systems, new materials and processes, new analytics and sensing, or interdisciplinary approaches that are difficult to categorize. The acid test: what is your plausible technological vision that is merely out of the reach of the current state of the art?

How exactly will the proposals be evaluated?

Three same thirty, they put their teeth:

-Excellence: acute, falsifiable discontinuity beyond the state of the art, falsifiable suppositions, and plausible procedures.

-Impact: A technological vision that has realistic downstream paths/ routes to implementation and measurable benefits (orders-of-magnitude shifts are compelling).

-Implementation: lean plan of work, clear risks with triggers and owners, and a team that literally cuts across the disciplines needed. Opportunistic Fit to Open (bottom-up, breakthrough): Decisive.

Which KPIs should we promise but not over-promise?

Select 4-6 that are difficult to disprove and difficult to prove:

-Performance deltas (e.g., ≥10x signal-to-noise, ≥80% yield over >95% selectivity or LoD improvements by ≥1 order of magnitude).

-Intensity of resource (MJ/kg, E-factor, >95% re-use of solvent).

-Reliability (≥250 h of uninterrupted operation at <2 percent drift; cross-site CV <10-15 percent).

-Throughput (≥2x samples/day or g·L⁻¹·h⁻¹ vs. baseline).

-Stress to drift (can handle typical impurity (or domain) changes with a loss of [?]5 performance).

Take numbers that your methodology can strike in months 24-36, then instrument the readings.

What does the game change when microfluidics and lab automation are involved in Pathfinder Open projects?

Three concrete levers:

-Discovery velocity: 10-100x cut time and waste microlitre-scale experiments, droplet/segmented-flow screens, and closed-loop optimization.

-Process intensification: The refined mastery of residence time and mixing, as well as heat/mass transfer, makes a selectivity- and stability-based approach impossible in bulk systems.

-Translation: Cartridge-based prototypes with inline analytics. Squeezing out Smart chemistry/biology to believable TRL-4 hardware.

This is the main part of the Microfluidics Innovation Center: the design and fabrication of chips, instrumented benches, automation, and pre-test prototypes.

What drowns otherwise promising Pathfinder Open plans?

Five repeat offenders:

-Allegations of newness without bristling head-to-head baselines.

-Green by declaration, having no quantified sustainability measures or boundaries of the system.

-Growing consortia whose functions overlap and have thin engineering capacity.

-Risk registers with hazards, but without triggers, owners, and plan B.

-None of the ablation studies – the reviewers are unable to know what is, in fact, driving the gain.

What do you think the submission pack should be?

A one-page concept containing the scientific bet, the measure that counts, and why now; a KPI table including baselines, targets and how you will measure them; a risk log including clear triggers and shutdown rules; a lean Gantt including decision gates after every 6-9 months; partner roles sheets correlated to facilities; and short exploitation notes that map the first adopters.

Is MIC able to join, prototype, and assist in writing?

Yes. MIC will be at the forefront, leading the engineering middle: microfluidic chip design and microfabrication, sensorized rigs, automated data collection, and deliverable prototypes on behalf of WP2-WP3. We are also co-writing Implementation and Impact, reaching out to great labs and SMEs across the rest of Europe, and developing prototypes that will de-risk the path to TRL 4. In previous Horizon Europe partnerships, proposal success rates, with an emphasis on a particular SME such as MIC, on average doubled the official baselines of similar calls.

How do we suppose 2025 is going to work out?

Turn the path into a 4-6 month, all-out sprint to shape the consortium into a submission-ready draft, including two in-house reviews and one dry run. The project has an internal structure with quarterly decision gate planning, early reproducibility package planning, Mid-term prototype stability planning, and late-stage evidence of exploitation planning.

What is the point of putting an SME such as MIC in a Pathfinder Open team?

Since assessors punish reasonable engineering and disciplined performance, MIC offers the skills of microfluidics and automation, rapid development of prototypes, and proposal development – the set of skills that transforms a risky concept into a plausible plan. We have increased the chances of success by an average of twice as much as being in consortia, and we are delivering prototypes that partners can verify regularly, free of reset.