How to Explain TRL to Reviewers in a Deep Tech Business Plan

#What Is TRL — A 9-Level Overview

TRL is a technology-maturity scale originally developed by NASA and later standardized by EU research programs. In Korea, it's been formally adopted as an evaluation standard for business plans by bodies including the Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT), the Ministry of Science and ICT's R&D programs, and the Ministry of SMEs and Startups' technology-based startup support programs. The higher the number, the closer to commercialization — but the key point is that each level demands a different kind of evidence.

Most early deep tech founding teams sit in the TRL 3–5 range. That's the stage where technical feasibility has been shown, but the commercialization path is still unclear. Reviewers don't treat that lack of clarity itself as grounds for rejection. What they do check is whether the team accurately understands its current stage, and whether the resource plan for advancing to the next stage is realistic.

#Three Errors Reviewers Repeatedly Find

Across deep tech business plans, there's a recurring writing pattern that shows up regardless of how strong the underlying technology is. It's not a technology problem — it's a communication problem. The three patterns below turn up often even among technically excellent teams.

The first is overstating TRL. A classic example is labeling lab-level validation (TRL 4) as TRL 7. Reviewers cross-check whether the stated number matches the submitted evidence. Once a mismatch surfaces, it undermines confidence in the technology claims across the board.

The second is stating TRL as a single bare number. A sentence like “We are currently at TRL 5” gives the reviewer no basis for judgment whatsoever. You need to spell out, concretely, which experimental results and which data were used to determine that stage.

The third is failing to explain the gap between the current TRL and the target TRL for commercialization. If the plan doesn't specify the time, funding, and key milestones needed to move from TRL 4 to TRL 7, reviewers start to doubt whether the team actually understands its own development roadmap.

#Evidence and Writing Strategy by TRL Range

Reviewers expect a different kind of evidence at each TRL stage. The strategy below is based on the evaluation standards used in Korean government grant and R&D programs. Evaluation criteria can vary by specific program, so always cross-check the evaluation items in the actual program announcement.

The detail teams at TRL 3–4 miss most often is omitting measurement conditions. A statement like “achieved 95% efficiency” isn't enough on its own. You need to state the conditions under which it was measured — temperature, pressure, sample size, number of repetitions — so the reviewer can judge reproducibility. The moment a number is given context, the density of your technical explanation changes.

#Where to Place TRL Within the Business Plan

Rather than pulling TRL information out into its own separate chapter, it reads better woven naturally into the flow of “problem definition → technical approach → current development status → commercialization roadmap.” Use the sequence below as a reference.

1. Problem definition section: Explain the limits of existing technology from a TRL perspective. Something like “competitor technology has stalled at TRL 6, unable to solve the [X] problem required to advance to the next stage” is effective.
2. Technical approach section: Describe your technology's core principle and differentiation while stating your current TRL level. Note the basis for that stage determination — experimental data, papers, test reports — in parentheses.
3. Development status section: State the specific performance figures achieved at your current TRL. Include measurement conditions, number of repetitions, and whether third-party verification occurred.
4. Commercialization roadmap section: Lay out your TRL-advancement plan by year. Include the key tasks, budget, and expected timeline required for each stage transition.
5. Funding requirements section: Tie TRL-stage transitions to budget. State the basis explicitly — e.g., “₩[amount] for pilot-facility construction to move from TRL 5 to TRL 6.”
6. Risk factors section: State honestly the possibility of failing to advance a TRL stage and your response plan. Teams that acknowledge risk tend to be seen as having a more grounded understanding of their technology.

The structure reviewers find easiest to read is one where the TRL-advancement plan ties directly into a milestone table. A line like “Q3 2026: Reach TRL 5 — third-party test lab performance certification complete” packs date, stage, and evidence into a single line, so the evaluator doesn't have to infer anything separately. The less inferring you leave for the reviewer, the higher your score on the narrative sections tends to be.

#Frequently Asked Questions — TRL Writing in Practice

Q. What TRL level do I need to state to be eligible to apply? Eligible TRL ranges vary by program. Some R&D programs require TRL 3 or higher, while early-stage startup support programs may accept TRL 1–4. Always check the “target technology readiness level” item in the program announcement — falling short of the bar can get you eliminated at the document-screening stage.

Q. What if my self-assessed TRL differs from the reviewer's judgment? It's common for a 1–2 level gap to exist between your stated TRL and the reviewer's assessment. What matters most in that case is the evidence you submitted. If the evidence is solid, a lower stated TRL doesn't cost you much. Conversely, overstating your TRL without adequate evidence damages your credibility. The safer strategy is to state conservatively and back it up with evidence.

Q. Can TRL be applied to software/AI-based technology? Yes. But applying hardware-centric criteria directly can feel awkward. It's common to reinterpret TRL for software/AI as “algorithm accuracy validation (TRL 3–4),” “real-data-environment validation (TRL 5–6),” and “live-service operational proof (TRL 7–9).” Some programs provide a separate TRL rubric specifically for software, so check the program announcement first.

Q. Do I need a published paper to explain TRL? A paper helps, but it's not required. You can substitute certified reports from external accredited test labs, public demonstration materials, or expert advisory confirmations. What matters is evidence that's verifiable by a third party. If all you have is internal test results, it's worth commissioning at least one external test lab evaluation.

#Pre-Submission TRL Self-Check Checklist and Next Steps

Before submitting your business plan, work through the items below in order. All of them need to be satisfied for your TRL narrative to clear the reviewer bar.

1. You've stated your current TRL level, and presented the basis for that determination (experimental results, papers, test reports, etc.) in the body text or as an attachment.
2. The stated TRL number matches the submitted evidence. (TRL 6 stated → TRL-6-level evidence actually exists)
3. When stating technical performance figures, you've included the measurement conditions (temperature, pressure, dataset size, etc.) alongside them.
4. Your plan for moving from the current TRL to the target TRL is tied to a milestone table or development schedule.
5. The key tasks and budget required for the TRL transition are reflected in your funding-requirements section.
6. You've described the technical risks that could arise during the TRL transition and your response plan.
7. You've explained your technology's relative position by comparing its TRL against competitors' or existing technology.
8. You've confirmed that your current stage falls within the eligible TRL range stated in the program announcement.

Even after clearing every item on the checklist, it's worth having someone independently verify whether the narrative holds up from an actual reviewer's point of view. Your TRL narrative directly affects your technology-section score, but it's also evaluated on how well it connects to other sections — problem definition, commercialization strategy, team capability. It's worth having a third party confirm that your evidence and body text don't contradict each other, and that the TRL narrative doesn't feel out of place within the overall flow.