When the CRA reviews a medical SR&ED claim, it may examine the research work, the costs, or both. Every claim goes through a risk assessment, and some are also chosen through random sampling. Being selected does not mean the claim will be denied. It means the CRA needs more information before it can finish processing it.
A well-prepared claim makes three connections easy to follow: what the team was trying to learn, which records support that work, and how the claimed costs were calculated.
Can the reviewer follow the science?
The claim should explain why the answer was not already available and how the team tried to find it. A reviewer needs to understand the scientific or technological problem, the possible explanations or approaches that were tested, the results, and what the team learned.
The boundaries matter too. Medical projects often mix possible SR&ED with patient care, recruitment, routine testing, quality control, and administration. The claim should show when the experimental work started, when it ended, and which parts of the wider study were left out.
Do the records match the story?
The CRA says the strongest supporting evidence is dated and specific to the work performed. That evidence should help answer four practical questions: What was done? Who did it? When did it happen? How were the related costs determined?
No single document has to answer everything. A protocol version can show how a method changed. Lab notes and failed-run data can show what was tested. Meeting notes and analysis histories can establish timing. Payroll records, time estimates, invoices, contracts, and accounting schedules can connect the people and costs to the project.
The documents should tell the same story as the claim. Conflicting dates, unexplained personnel, or a contract that names a different party can create questions even when the science itself is sound.
Did the right person or corporation claim the costs?
One medical study may involve a physician, professional corporation, hospital, university, sponsor, and contractor. The CRA may ask who agreed to perform the research, which entity paid each cost, whether grants or other assistance reduced those costs, and how contractor or support work was treated.
This is why a strong technical description cannot fix unclear agreements or financial records. Both the research and the calculation need support.
What does a prepared file look like?
A prepared file lets the reviewer move from the uncertainty to the work, then to the records and costs without guessing. It also includes the awkward parts: failed tests, work that was partly routine, reasonable estimates of research time, grant funding, and unclear arrangements that were resolved before filing.
Good preparation cannot guarantee approval, but it can make questions easier to answer and reduce avoidable inconsistencies. If your research involves several entities or funding sources, a fit and evidence conversation can help identify the issues that should be settled before a claim is filed.