A TRL story is not a sentence in a proposal. It is the logic that ties your workplan together.
A useful structure is:
1) Start TRL: what exists today, and what proof supports it.
2) End TRL: what maturity will look like at project end.
3) Proof steps: what must be proven to move between those points.
4) Outputs: what tangible deliverables represent that proof (analysis reports, pilot results, validated workflows).
5) Risks and mitigations: what could block proving and how you reduce that risk.
Then align your work packages to the proof steps.
If a work package says “clinical validation” but there is no defined population, outcome, or method, the TRL story becomes weak. If the budget is mostly engineering time but the TRL story requires clinical evidence, reviewers will spot the mismatch quickly.
A good TRL story also avoids inflated jumps. Going from very early TRL to near-market TRL inside a short project without strong rationale often looks unrealistic. It is better to propose a credible progression with clear milestones.
Worthmed® helps teams craft TRL narratives that are evidence-driven and budget-realistic, often by defining the minimum proof needed to justify the next step and designing pilots that map to concrete decisions.