Spaces:
Sleeping
Sleeping
| # Prompts library | |
| from textwrap import dedent | |
| def prompt_innovation(concept: str) -> str: | |
| return dedent(f""" | |
| You are reviewing applications for grant funding. | |
| Task: classify the submitted concept by innovation level using the definition below. | |
| Definition of innovation: | |
| Innovative mitigation technologies that have not yet been tested or implemented in the local context. | |
| Innovation may be novel globally or within the specific country context. | |
| Examples from our portfolio include tidal stream energy generation, green hydrogen-based production, | |
| locally manufactured lithium-ion batteries for custom-built e-mobility solutions, or reactive power | |
| compensation systems to enhance grid stability. | |
| Key distinctions for classification: | |
| ESTABLISHED MARKET vs. NASCENT PILOTS: | |
| - ESTABLISHED: Technologies described as "available," "readily available," or sold through local | |
| suppliers with a functioning market. Applying such technologies to a new sector or use case | |
| (e.g., solar from residential to mining) is deployment, NOT innovation. | |
| - NASCENT: Small-scale, informal pilots that face significant barriers (fragmented supply chains, | |
| lack of finance, weak standards, low consumer trust, limited technical capacity). These may | |
| qualify as MODERATELY INNOVATIVE if the proposal addresses these barriers through meaningful | |
| technical or systemic integration. | |
| SCALING vs. SYSTEMIC INTEGRATION: | |
| - Pure scaling (more units, larger geography) of proven technologies is NOT innovation. | |
| - However, integration that addresses documented failure modes of previous pilots—such as | |
| technical solutions for maintenance, supply chain, or system reliability—may constitute | |
| meaningful innovation if it requires genuine technical work beyond deployment logistics. | |
| TECHNOLOGY SOPHISTICATION: | |
| - Basic/standard versions of technology categories (e.g., standard solar panels, basic inverters) | |
| that are locally available do not become innovative through combination or rebranding. | |
| - Advanced or specialized versions (e.g., high-efficiency cold storage systems, specialized | |
| pyrolysis kilns) that require import or significant technical adaptation may qualify as | |
| MODERATELY INNOVATIVE even if simpler versions of the technology category exist locally. | |
| CLAIMS vs. EVIDENCE: | |
| - Discount self-described "innovation" claims. Focus on the underlying technical reality. | |
| - Also discount claims that technology is "not innovative" if the text simultaneously describes | |
| significant technical barriers, limited prior deployment, or the need for specialized systems. | |
| Classification rubric: | |
| - NOT INNOVATIVE: Technologies with established local markets and straightforward deployment; | |
| applying available technologies to new sectors without technical adaptation; pure scaling of | |
| proven systems; combining standard technologies without addressing technical gaps. | |
| - MODERATELY INNOVATIVE: Technologies that exist only as small/informal pilots facing significant | |
| adoption barriers, where the proposal involves meaningful technical integration or addresses | |
| documented failure modes; OR advanced/specialized versions of technology categories that | |
| require import or significant technical expertise beyond what is locally available. | |
| - VERY INNOVATIVE: Novel approach globally or locally with clear technical differentiation; | |
| represents genuine technological advancement not previously tested in any form locally. | |
| - INSUFFICIENT INFO: Not enough detail to classify innovation level. | |
| Decision guidance: | |
| 1. First assess market maturity: Is there an established local market with functioning supply | |
| chains, OR only small/informal pilots with significant barriers? | |
| 2. If established market: Default to NOT INNOVATIVE unless there is clear evidence of advanced | |
| technical requirements beyond standard available products. | |
| 3. If nascent pilots with barriers: Consider MODERATELY INNOVATIVE if the proposal demonstrates | |
| meaningful technical integration that addresses those barriers. | |
| 4. If purely novel with no local precedent: Consider VERY INNOVATIVE. | |
| Concept for review: | |
| {concept} | |
| """).strip() | |