Your R&D claim makes sense to you. But the better question is, will the technical narrative behind it make sense to HMRC?
When you've been close to a project, everything feels obvious.
Of course it was difficult. Of course it wasn't straightforward. Of course there was uncertainty. But none of that is obvious to someone reading your claim for the first time.
And that's where most R&D claims start to weaken.
The Gap Most Companies Don't See
There's often a gap between:
What actually happened internally
And what gets written down in the claim
Inside the business, the complexity is clear. Outside of it, the explanation can feel thin.
You may end up with a list of tasks instead of a clearly defined problem, outputs described without the process behind them, and statements like "this was challenging" without actually showing why.
The work may fully qualify. But the explanation doesn't carry enough weight.
Why "We Did Something Complex" Isn't Enough
HMRC isn't trying to interpret what you meant. They're reading what you've written.
If your narrative doesn't clearly show the technical barrier, why it wasn't easily resolved, and how you worked through it, the claim becomes harder to assess. Not because it's wrong, but because it's unclear.
Where Strong Claims Do Things Differently
We recently reviewed a project described as:
"We developed a new automated data processing system to improve efficiency and handle larger data volumes."
That sounds technical, but it doesn't explain the R&D.
A stronger narrative would say:
"The existing system failed when processing datasets above X size due to memory constraints. Initial attempts to optimise queries and indexing did not resolve the issue. The team then tested alternative data partitioning approaches and restructured the processing logic, which required multiple iterations before a stable solution was achieved."
Same project. Very different level of clarity.
One describes what was built. The other shows the uncertainty and how it was addressed.
That's where the real substance is.
Not in what was built. But in what had to be figured out along the way.
A Useful Check
Before writing anything, step back and ask: "If someone with no context read this, would they understand why this was difficult?"
If the answer is no, that's where the narrative needs work.
Because a good technical narrative doesn't just describe the work. It makes the uncertainty obvious.
Most R&D claims don't fall down on eligibility. They fall down on communication.
And that's fixable.
If you're putting together a claim and want to sense-check whether your narrative actually reflects the reality of the work, it's worth getting a second view before submitting.
