All actions: How are evaluators going to evaluate the impact criterion? Do the applicants need to provide some kind of validation mechanism?

When talking about impact, this is prospective, it is in the future, assuming that the project is successful and that it achieves everything that it set up to achieve. The applicants could base themselves on some other studies to strengthen or build their case about the impact they could have, before the impact is actually achieved.

All actions: Are there any examples or guidance regarding possible impacts in projects in the Social Sciences and Humanities areas?

There are different scientific panels and proposals are ranked within their scientific panel. Proposals in some panels are more STEM-oriented and would have a different kind of impact than proposals in the SOC panel for instance, but these proposals would not compete against the STEM-oriented proposals. It should also be considered that the impact is now broadened to encompass not only a purely scientific impact but also impact on the society at large. This can be an area where the SSH proposals could actually have a competitive advantage.

All actions: Are there examples of linked associated partners and the added benefit for them to participate in a MSCA action when they are not able to claim costs?

 The first thing to note is, even though they cannot directly claim costs, it does not mean that they cannot indirectly receive some funding for the role they have in the DN. Typically for each unit cost there is one part that goes to the researcher and then there is the institutional part, and this part should not be seen as funding for just this particular fellow, and this beneficiary. It is rather a common pot for the whole consortium to run the project. In the consortium agreement the consortium defines how this is split. This funding can be distributed to the different partners according to their needs in the project: some partners provide more trainings, for instance, the coordinator typically has more management costs, so this funding can be redistributed, and some of this money can go to associated partners to cover the costs of them hosting researchers for secondments, or for them to provide trainings. So these are internal arrangements within the consortium (in the broader sense with the associated partners) so they can get indirectly money for their action. Of course, there are also non-financial incentives; the interest for them to participate could be transfer of knowledge or being part of a dynamic network and being associated to the research project.

For PF, direct financial benefits may not be there but there are plenty indirect benefits - scientific contributions, networking, getting experience in this type of projects, hosting events.

All actions: In which part of the proposal Open Science aspects should be included?

All Open Science aspects are moved under Excellence in the methodology. Open Access should not be described under Impact and Dissemination as it is assessed under Excellence.

All actions: Are both beneficiaries AND associated partners from Member States and Associated Countries, who meet the criteria of public bodies, required to have a published GEP by the time of GA signature?

This requirement should be applicable to beneficiaries and not to associated partners.

All actions: When does the checking of the GEPs happen?

The check will be done during the preparation of the Grant Agreement but it is recommended not to wait for the GAP to start the process. As soon as the applicant ticks the self- declaration box, the process should be launched.