Request Received: 7 June 2026
The information I am requesting relates to how Innovate UK administers its grant assessment and complaints processes, and how it monitors whether its published policies are applied consistently in practice. This is information held by a public body in the exercise of its public functions. Its disclosure serves the genuine public interest in transparent and accountable administration of publicly funded grant programmes.
I request that UKRI provide the information set out below. Where data is held in a form that requires extraction, I confirm I am content to receive it in summary statistical form, provided the summaries are sufficiently detailed to answer each sub-question. Where information is not held in the form requested, please confirm this explicitly for each sub-question and describe what related information is held.
Note on scope: 'Grant application complaints' means formal complaints submitted by applicants relating to assessment, scoring, moderation, or feedback processes for Innovate UK competitive grant programmes, including but not limited to the Women in Innovation Awards. 'Competition cycle' means each distinct round of a competition in which applications were received, assessed, and outcomes notified. Where requests refer to the Women in Innovation Awards 2025/26 specifically, this means the most recently completed competition cycle in which outcomes were notified.
Request 1: Scores of 3–4 recommended for funding and awarded grants — Women in Innovation Awards 2025/26
For the Women in Innovation Awards 2025/26 competition specifically, please provide:
a) The total number of applications in which any assessor awarded a score of 3 or 4 on any single assessed question and simultaneously stated in their written feedback that the application was recommended for funding;
b) Of those applications, the number that received a funded award as an outcome of the competition;
c) The total number of applications that received a funded award, expressed as a figure and as a percentage of total applications assessed; and
d) Whether any of the applications identified in (a) were subject to a moderation review as a result of the score of 3 or 4 — and if so, how many, and what the outcome of that review was.
If this data is not held in a structured form at question level, please confirm this explicitly and describe what scoring data is held and in what form.
Request 2: Published or internal guidance on scores of 3–4 and funding recommendations
Please provide the following:
a) Any published or internal guidance, policy document, scoring framework, assessor briefing, or written instruction that addresses the relationship between a score of 3 or 4 on the published scoring matrix and a funding recommendation — specifically, whether such guidance permits, requires, prohibits, or is silent on an assessor awarding a score in the 3–4 range and simultaneously recommending an application for funding;
b) Whether assessors for the Women in Innovation Awards 2025/26 were provided with any explicit instruction — in training, briefing materials, or written guidance — on how to reconcile a low question-level score with an overall funding recommendation; and
c) If no such guidance exists in relation to (a) or (b), please confirm this explicitly — and confirm whether the absence of such guidance reflects a deliberate policy choice or an identified gap in the assessment framework that has not yet been addressed.
Please provide copies of any documents responsive to (a) and (b), or confirm that no such documents are held.
Request 3: Complaint volumes — grant application assessments
For each of the last three competition cycles in which Women in Innovation Awards applications were assessed (including 2025/26), and for Innovate UK grant programmes overall over the same period, please provide:
a) The total number of formal complaints received relating to grant application assessment, scoring, moderation, or feedback processes;
b) The total number of those complaints upheld in full;
c) The total number upheld in part;
d) The total number not upheld; and
e) Where available, the total number of discrete complaint points (individual complaint issues) raised across all complaints, and the number of those individual points that were upheld.
Please provide this data broken down by programme — including Women in Innovation specifically — and by competition cycle, where it is held in that form.
Request 4: Score variance and moderation data — Women in Innovation Awards 2025/26
For the Women in Innovation Awards 2025/26 competition specifically, please provide:
a) The total number of applications assessed;
b) The total number of applications in which a question-level score variance of 40% or more existed between any two assessors on the same question;
c) Of those, the number flagged for moderation review under the outlier process or any other mechanism;
d) The number that were not flagged for any further review; and
e) The number of applications in which assessor feedback was identified, at any point in the assessment or moderation process, as referencing an incorrect question number.
If data at question level is not held in a structured form, please confirm this explicitly and describe what score variance data is held and in what form.
Request 5: Complaint uphold rate trends — three-year analysis
For each of the last three calendar or financial years (whichever basis UKRI uses for internal reporting), please provide:
a) The total number of formal complaints received by Innovate UK relating to grant assessment processes;
b) The uphold rate — as a percentage — for those complaints at Stage 1 and Stage 2 respectively;
c) The total number of appeals received under UKRI's complaints procedure relating to grant assessment processes; and
d) The uphold rate for those appeals.
If this data is already published in an annual report, transparency return, or other public document, please provide the relevant reference and page number.
Request 6: Policy monitoring — assessment and moderation framework
Please provide the following information relating to how UKRI monitors the effectiveness of its published assessment and moderation policies:
a) A description of the process by which Innovate UK monitors whether its published assessment and moderation policies — including those relating to outlier thresholds, moderation triggers, and assessor feedback quality — are being applied consistently in practice;
b) The frequency with which that monitoring is conducted and by whom;
c) Whether any internal audit, review, or evaluation of the assessment or moderation framework has been conducted in the last three years — and if so, the date, scope, findings, and any actions taken as a result; and
d) Whether UKRI holds any data or evidence on the consistency of assessor scoring across competitions — for example, inter-rater reliability data, calibration exercise outcomes, or assessor standardisation review findings — and if so, what that data shows at a summary level.
Request 7: Equality impact — Women in Innovation programme
In relation to UKRI's obligations under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, please provide:
a) Whether an equality impact assessment has been conducted on the assessment and moderation framework used for the Women in Innovation Awards — and if so, when it was last conducted and what its findings were;
b) Whether UKRI holds data on complaint rates, complaint uphold rates, or appeal rates disaggregated by applicant protected characteristics — including gender — for the Women in Innovation programme or for Innovate UK grant programmes generally; and
c) What steps UKRI has taken to verify that the assessment and moderation framework for the Women in Innovation Awards advances, rather than replicates, the structural disadvantages the programme is designed to address.
If any of the above information is not held, please confirm this explicitly for each sub-question.
Request 8: Assessor error and quality assurance data
Please provide the following information relating to assessor quality assurance:
a) The number of instances in the last three competition cycles in which assessor feedback was identified as containing an error — including but not limited to feedback referencing an incorrect question — and the process by which such errors were identified and addressed;
b) Whether Innovate UK holds data on assessor calibration or standardisation outcomes — for example, the proportion of assessors whose scoring has been found to deviate significantly from agreed standards — and if so, what that data shows at a summary level; and
c) The process by which Innovate UK decides whether an assessor error is sufficiently material to warrant a review of the score awarded — and whether that process is documented in any published or internal policy.
Please confirm whether any assessor errors identified in response to (a) resulted in a review of the score awarded and, if so, the outcome of that review.
