T661 Writing

Writing Technical Narratives That CRA Reviewers Actually Read

CRA reviewers read hundreds of T661 narratives. The ones that get approved are specific, structured, and evidence-backed. Here's how to write narratives that communicate clearly under time pressure.

Marcus Webb · Editorial Lead 2026-04-10 6 min read

The reviewer perspective

A CRA reviewer has limited time per claim. They scan for structure first: does the narrative follow the required format (technological advancement, systematic investigation, knowledge context)? Then they check for specificity: are the claims concrete and evidence-backed? Finally, they assess plausibility: does the described work match the company's size, stage, and capabilities?

Narratives that fail typically do so in the first 30 seconds of review. They're vague, unstructured, or describe work that doesn't sound like R&D. Narratives that pass make the reviewer's job easy by following a clear structure and providing specific, verifiable claims.

The four-paragraph structure that works

  1. Context: What technological capability were you trying to achieve, and why did existing approaches fail? (2–3 sentences)
  2. Uncertainty: What specifically was unknown or unresolved when you started? (1–2 sentences)
  3. Investigation: What did you try, in what order, and what did each attempt teach you? (4–6 sentences with specific methods)
  4. Advancement: What new knowledge or capability did you develop, and how does it differ from what existed before? (2–3 sentences)

Specificity checklist for every claim

  • Name the specific technology, framework, or approach you were working with — not 'our platform' or 'the system'
  • Quantify constraints where possible — latency thresholds, throughput targets, accuracy rates
  • Reference specific time periods — 'over Q2 2026' not 'last year'
  • Cite specific evidence types — 'documented in ADR-042' or 'tested in load-test-2026-q1'
  • Describe dead ends and failures — they demonstrate systematic investigation better than success stories alone
  • Connect the work to the company's broader technology roadmap
T661 narrative writing CRA review

Turn this guide into a claim package

SREDY.IO walks you through eligibility, project narratives, supporting costs, and evidence so your CPA has a cleaner file to review.

Check eligibility → View sample package

More guides

T661 Writing

Preparing a T661 Narrative Your CPA Can Actually Work With

A T661 project narrative covers technological advancement, systematic investigation, and the technical context that made new knowledge necessary. Here's how each part should read — and what CPAs typically flag.

 T661 Writing

How to Talk About Uncertainty Without Overclaiming

The language you use in a T661 narrative matters. Overstating uncertainty reads as speculative. Understating it undersells the challenge. Here's how to write about technical uncertainty in CRA-ready language.

 Eligibility

What Actually Makes Software Work SR&ED-Eligible?

Most software companies doing real R&D leave SR&ED credits on the table because they don't recognize their own qualifying work. Here's the eligibility distinction that matters.

Ready to check if your work qualifies? Take the free eligibility assessment.

Check eligibility — free →