Knowledge & Insights
Staying enquiry-ready (without the drama)
“Enquiry-ready” doesn’t have to mean fear, over-documentation, or building a bureaucracy around your R&D claim. It simply means you can explain, clearly and calmly, what you did, why it was technically uncertain, how you resolved it, and how the numbers map to the work.
This article shares a pragmatic, low-friction approach: a light-touch evidence pack, a repeatable monthly rhythm, and a methodology that stays consistent year-on-year. The aim is to make the claim process easier, not heavier.
1) A better way to think about “enquiry-ready”
The goal is not to prepare for an adversarial event. The goal is to make your claim easy to understand. In practice, that means three things:
Clarity
A reviewer can quickly see what was uncertain, what was attempted, what changed, and what the outcome was.
Consistency
The story in the report matches the AIF disclosures, and the cost methodology matches how you actually deliver work.
Traceability
You can trace the headline cost numbers back to a sensible apportionment approach, without “forcing” time records to fit.
If you can do the above, you’ll be in a strong position regardless of how HMRC’s internal processes evolve.
2) The 6 artefacts that matter most
Most teams already have the raw material. Enquiry-ready is often about organising it, not creating more of it. Here’s a minimal set that works well across Software, MarTech, Engineering and Life Sciences.
- Project one-pager: objective, uncertainty, baseline, constraints, outcome.
- Iteration log: 6–12 bullet entries for key changes + why they happened.
- Test/validation highlights: a small set of meaningful results (including failures).
- Decision evidence: tickets/PRs/design notes where technical trade-offs were made.
- Cost methodology note: how you apportion roles/cost categories, stable year to year.
- Cost-to-work mapping: a simple bridge linking people/contractors to workstreams/projects.
- A full copy of every ticket or commit.
- A forensic recreation of timesheets.
- Dozens of pages of screenshots.
- Reams of BAU documentation.
- A last-minute evidence scramble at year-end.
3) A monthly rhythm that doesn’t annoy your team
The best approach is a light cadence that keeps things current. The longer you leave it, the more the claim becomes a memory exercise, and that’s when time gets wasted.
A simple operating rhythm
Once a month: 30 minutes with a technical lead + 15 minutes with finance/ops. Capture what changed, what was learned, and whether the project is still within the uncertainty phase.
Technical lead (30 mins)
- Any major unknowns resolved or new unknowns introduced?
- Key iterations (what changed and why)?
- Notable tests / failures / validations?
- Are we still in R&D phase, or transitioning to BAU?
Finance/ops (15 mins)
- New contractors or suppliers? Role and location confirmed?
- Any significant cost items to tag (prototype materials, cloud, labs)?
- Any changes to staffing mix or delivery model?
- Anything that affects apportionment assumptions?
4) Keep AIF, report and numbers consistent
Under the current regime, you want the AIF disclosures, the narrative report and the tax computation to feel like parts of one coherent pack. The easiest way to achieve that is to maintain a single “source of truth” summary for each project and use it everywhere.
One project summary → multiple outputs
A one-page project summary can feed your AIF narrative, your report structure, and the internal mapping for costs.
Stability beats novelty
Year-on-year, keep the methodology stable unless the business model or delivery model changes. Consistency reduces friction.
5) Linking cost to work (without reverse-engineering)
The most common error is trying to reverse-engineer the claim from timesheets or a general ledger export. A better approach is the opposite: define qualifying activity first, then apply a sensible methodology that reflects how your teams and contractors actually contribute.
A clean cost bridge
Build a short mapping table: workstreams/projects → roles/people/contractors → % R&D → cost category. Keep the assumptions explainable, and document why each percentage is reasonable.
A methodology is not “how you got to the answer”; it’s the logic for why the answer is a fair representation of qualifying activity.
6) Governance: who signs off what
Governance doesn’t need to be formal. It just needs to be explicit. We typically recommend a simple sign-off chain so that it’s clear who owned the technical story and who owned the numbers.
Technical sign-off
A technical lead confirms the project uncertainties, the iterations, and that the narrative accurately reflects the work delivered.
Finance sign-off
Finance confirms the cost base, the apportionment logic, and that the claim aligns with the accounting/tax treatment used.
7) What triggers avoidable back-and-forth
Most delays and follow-up questions come from avoidable ambiguity. The patterns below are common, and easy to fix with a calmer pack.
Typical friction points
- Projects described at a very high level with no clear uncertainty.
- Inconsistent descriptions between AIF and report.
- Cost percentages that feel “rounded” with no rationale.
- Contractor eligibility/location unclear (especially overseas elements).
- Accounting/tax presentation that obscures the credit treatment.
How to pre-empt them
- Use a project one-pager with explicit baseline + constraint.
- Maintain one “source of truth” summary per project.
- Document the reasoning behind apportionments in plain English.
- Record contractor status/location up front.
- Make the credit treatment visible in the pack and computation narrative.
8) Practical checklist
- Each project has a one-page summary with uncertainty + baseline + constraints.
- There’s a short iteration log showing learning and technical decision-making.
- Test/validation evidence includes meaningful failures or unexpected outcomes where relevant.
- AIF, report and internal cost mapping use the same project summaries.
- Cost methodology is consistent, explainable, and reflects how delivery actually happens.
- Contractor roles, status and location are clear (especially where overseas is involved).
Want a low-friction “enquiry-ready” setup?
We’ll help you build a calm claim pack and a light monthly rhythm that strengthens defensibility without adding operational drag.
Request a call back