Service 02 — Sample Analysis

What Do We Actually Find Before an Audit?
Real Outputs, Representative Data.

The gap analysis, finding reports, and funding leverage calculations below are real outputs from our Capital Optimization engagements. The data comes from a representative R&D Center profile based on scenarios we frequently encounter in Turkish manufacturing.

This is not a process narrative. This is a sample of the analysis you receive when we apply it to your R&D Center.

120+

Projects Managed

€35.5M+

Incentives Defended

Ministry Audits

Zero

Findings

21 Years

R&D Experience

Sample R&D Center Profile

This profile represents a typical client structure — an automotive tier-1 supplier with a certified Law 5746 R&D Center.

SectorAutomotive Tier-1 Supplier

Scale480 employees, 54 R&D staff

R&D Budget€3.2M / year

Active Projects11 projects (under Law 5746)

5746 StatusCertified R&D Center — 6th year

Last Audit18 months ago (next expected in ~6 months)

What Typically Exists in This Profile?

The R&D team is experienced, files are "ready" — but during the last audit, an auditor questioned the R&D character of one project and requested additional justification. Management says "never again." Meanwhile, the portfolio contains projects eligible for TÜBİTAK funding, but no applications have been submitted — the team didn't have the capacity, and nobody looked from the outside.

What's Required?

~10–12 hours from your team. Duration: 3–4 weeks. The rest of the analysis is conducted entirely by Luminairo.

Project Start & Completion Reports

Technical files for active and completed projects — as-is.

Personnel Lists & Classification

Staff distribution and project assignments.

Incentive Structure & Audit History

5746 scope, current incentive amounts, past audit notes if available.

TÜBİTAK/EU Project History

Existing or past TÜBİTAK/EU applications and outcomes, if any.

Project Leader Interviews

~30-minute structured interview per project.

What Is the Portfolio Compliance Score (PCS)?

A two-layer assessment based on Ministry audit criteria. Layer 1: R&D Center overall compliance — organization, infrastructure, audit requirements, future plans. Layer 2: Project-level compliance — personnel, documentation, R&D character provability. Each criterion is evaluated as Yes/No; the portfolio score is calculated as a capital-weighted average. 90+: audit-resilient. 70–89: correctable gaps exist. <70: high risk of audit findings.

R&D Center Score

/ 100 — Acceptable

Personnel Compliance (20%) 67

Documentation & Infrastructure (20%) 86

Audit Requirements (15%) 67

Future Plans (5%) 67

* Center score comprises 4 dimensions (total 60%). R&D Character (40%) is assessed at project level — visible in the project matrix below.

Portfolio Compliance Score

/ 100 — Risk Zone

Capital-weighted • 11 projects

Project	Budget	Personnel	Docs	R&D	PCS
P-01	€480K	100	67	71	76
P-02	€380K	75	50	64	63
P-03	€520K	100	67	71	76
P-04	€420K	100	33	50	57
P-05	€290K	75	33	50	52

P-06	€310K	100	67	71	76
P-07 – P-11	5 more projects

+6 more projects — full scorecard delivered within engagement

Book a Call →

Weights: Personnel 20% | Documentation 20% | R&D Character 60%. Portfolio score is capital-weighted — a low score on a €420K project has a larger portfolio impact than on a €290K project.

Output — Key Findings

Findings from the engagement are reported in three categories. Typical findings from this sample:

Critical — Found in Every Engagement

Project 04 and Project 05: No R&D character justification

The project initiation reports cover technical feasibility but don't directly answer "why is this project R&D?" The Ministry auditor isn't looking for technical capability — they're looking for the effort to overcome uncertainty. If the question "where is the boundary of existing knowledge?" goes unanswered, the project looks like standard product development. Total risk exposure: classification of 10 FTEs questionable — annual incentive impact ~€285K.

Critical — Personnel Drift

Personnel classification inconsistency in Project 02 and Project 05

Some staff listed as R&D personnel were simultaneously engaged in activities that don't qualify as R&D. 7 people are recorded as full-time R&D while their activity logs show 30–40% weekly production support. Auditors question this distinction on a project-by-project basis.

Structural Risk — Present in Most R&D Centers

Completion reports are at indefensible standards

Completion reports for 3 finished projects follow a "project objectives achieved" format — they don't answer the question auditors ask: "how was the technological uncertainty resolved?" A good completion report answers even the questions the auditor didn't ask.

Opportunity — Usually Goes Unnoticed

3 projects meet TÜBİTAK TEYDEB application criteria

Project 01, Project 03, and one upcoming project meet TÜBİTAK 1501 or 1507 criteria. All currently run solely on 5746 incentives. Applying doesn't require opening a new project — it requires reframing existing work from a peer reviewer's perspective. Estimated additional funding potential: ~€430K (TÜBİTAK 1501 + Horizon Europe preliminary assessment).

Output — Remediation Roadmap & Risk Mitigation

4 Weeks

Total Duration

Remediation Actions

67 → 88+

Portfolio Compliance Score

€285K

Risk Reduction

+€430K

Funding Leverage

For every finding: who does what, by when — priority, timeline, and ownership are clearly defined. We plan backwards from the audit date.

Project	Remediation Action	Priority	Duration	Owner
P-04	R&D character justification — format that answers "where is the technological uncertainty?" directly from the file	Critical	1 week	Luminairo + Project Lead
P-05	R&D justification + personnel reclassification — activity records for 4 staff to be corrected	Critical	1 week	Luminairo + Project Lead + HR
P-05	Initiation report revision — R&D justification added, technical file strengthened	Critical	1 week	Luminairo + Project Lead
P-02	Personnel drift correction — weekly activity allocation updated for 3 borderline staff	High	2 days	Internal Team (Luminairo-guided)

All Projects	Completion report template creation	High	3 days	Luminairo
All Projects	Monthly internal audit checklist	Standard	1 day	Internal Team
Portfolio	Audit simulation	Critical	1 day	Luminairo + Full Team

+3 more actions — full remediation plan delivered within engagement

Book a Call →

Countdown to Audit Date — Risk Mitigation Timeline

Week 1

Critical Fixes — P-04 R&D Justification & P-05 Full Revision

P-04: R&D character justification. P-05: R&D justification + personnel reclassification + initiation report revision. Score impact: 67 → 74.

Week 2

High Priority — P-02 & Documentation

Personnel drift correction, completion report template creation, technical report standardization. Score impact: 74 → 81.

Week 3

System Setup & Fine-Tuning

Monthly internal audit checklist, new project initiation template, periodic reporting format. Score impact: 81 → 86.

Week 4

Audit Simulation

Real-conditions simulation following a Ministry auditor's typical inquiry flow. Score impact: 86 → 88+.

Expected Audit Window

~6 months out — team ready, files audit-proof.

Output — Funding Leverage Analysis

We evaluate portfolio projects against TÜBİTAK TEYDEB and EU framework programs. We don't chase grants opportunistically — we build defensible applications aligned with portfolio priorities.

Current vs. Optimized Funding Structure

Current State

€3.2M

5746 incentives only
TÜBİTAK/EU: €0

→

Optimized Structure

€3.2M + €430K

5746 preserved + TÜBİTAK 1501
+ 1 project Horizon Europe-eligible

+€430K Additional Funding

By reframing existing projects — without starting new ones

How Does Hidden Funding Potential Surface?

Among the projects already running in the portfolio, several meet TÜBİTAK 1501 or 1507 application criteria. All currently operate solely on 5746 incentives. Applying doesn't require opening a new project — it requires reframing existing work from a peer reviewer's perspective. We structure applications through the evaluator's lens.

What Do You Receive?

Compliance & Risk Summary

Management-level view summarizing compliance gaps and priority intervention areas.

Audit Risk Overview

Concise risk view showing audit-vulnerable areas and strengthening priorities.

Strengthened Technical Documentation

Defensible technical file structure and reusable internal documentation standards.

Audit Preparation Brief

Preparation note summarizing critical question areas and required corrections.

Additional Funding Strategy

Concise strategy note showing additional funding opportunities from the existing portfolio.

Follow-Up & Sustainability Notes

Short follow-up and sustainability framework to prevent the same gaps from recurring.

Does Your R&D Center Show These Symptoms?

How many of the following apply to your R&D Center?

Some projects' R&D character justification isn't strong enough to explain to an auditor.

Some R&D-classified staff periodically shift to production support activities.

Completed project reports follow an "objectives achieved" format — no technological uncertainty narrative.

The portfolio contains projects eligible for TÜBİTAK funding, but no applications have been made.

During the last audit, at least one item required additional explanation or correction.

3+ symptoms: Your R&D Center is likely carrying audit risk without knowing it. → Request a free consultation

Even 1–2 symptoms signal structural risk — especially if an audit is approaching. → Book a call

Your R&D Center appears above average — congratulations. There may still be untapped funding opportunities.

Does Your R&D Center Face the Same Risks?

The finding report, remediation roadmap, and funding leverage above are real engagement outputs. We used representative data because we can't share client data yet. But the tools and process are identical.

Let's discuss your situation in a 20-minute free consultation.

Book a Free Consultation

What Do We Actually Find Before an Audit?Real Outputs, Representative Data.