---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'NSF Proposal: Envelope'

---

---
robots: noindex, nofollow
---

# NSF Proposal

## Outlines

### 15-page Summary

* **Elevator Pitch** [1 page; write last]
   * Motivation: businesses are burdened by regulatory & liability over data
      * required retention
      * legal liability
      * how can they use to improve business
      * asset or toxic?
      * Meanwhile hackers, technical debt, legacy infrastructure, etc.
      * Shouldn't collect, shouldn't retain, but that's impractical
      * So we offer an alternative
         * Not B&W, have it or not
      * And ability to cooperative effectively
         * And takeover issues of trust
   * Customer: companies for whom collection of data is core to their business model & where they're part of a larger ecosystem where they're not the only holder of data.
   * Value Proposition: avoid liability; avoid regulatory threats; sell privacy to their customers
      * We can work within your data models to do the things you need to do while protecting yourself and others; and being liability and regulatory compliant
      * We work with a wide variety of structured data formats, far beyond relational databases
      * Can do things that don't exist at all right now to deal with data retention, offline, segregated, deleted and provable, robustness, etc. There just aren't other choices that give that ability.
      * You're usually part of an ecosystem (e.g., health: research orgs, insurance, hospitals, fitness trackers, etc), journalism (sources, sponsors, advertisers, publishers, journalists), etc, and so we support building trust and dealing with data together, cooperation in a competitive system [another company, another country, another ecosystem]
   * Innovation: hashed elision to allow: holder-based elision; variable levels of correlation; inclusion proofs; herd privacy. [WEAK]
      * [above may be some of innovations]
* **The Commercial Opportunity** [1-3 pages]
   * Market: companies for whom collection of data is core to their business model & where they're part of a larger ecosystem where they're not the only holder of data.
   * Business Economics, Market Drivers: traditionally, anything goes, but increasing regulations & penalties for misuse & loss of data
   * Main Validation: there are industries where this is important.
      * Digital Assets
      * Health
      * Journalism Integrity & Safety
      * Software Release
   * Key Commercial Risks: need to convince people they care about privacy!
      * But regulations make this easier
   * Commercial Benefits: Build a standard, get it in wide use, and be the experts in that field for advisorship. [WEAK] Maybe talk about a Gordian Seal?
   * Resources: Our three team members + maybe Sparrow partnership
   * Timeline: ??
      * Basically: iron out technical issues; identify [within year]
      * Get three deployments [within year]
      * Get into standardization [that's more than a year]
      * Get into wide release [that's beyond]
* **Technical Solution** [2-4 pages]
   * Brief description: Merkle Tree of hashed data
   * Stage: Tech is mature, technical innovations that derive them are still open
   * Technical Risks [IMPORTANT]
       * Correlation
          * Guessed Values for Hashes
          * Putting Together Multiple Envelopes
       * Radical Elision Abuse
          * General Results of Granular Holder-Based Elision
          * Contradictory Content
   * Technical Challenges [IMPORTANT]
       * Dealing with data at rest.
          * But it's rarely at rest: in databases, in systems, in neo4j graph database
          * How can we integrate tighter with these more sophisticated systems like neo4j & graph models that they support?
          * Are we only data at rest or transport for them? Or can they be more tightly integrated with graph databases?
       * Putting more burden on verifiers
          * classical security: burden was on web server to get certs, do all the pinning, use a CA that browser uses, etc. But when it hits client, it's just: do you trust it or not?
          * Our model isn't as clean: a lot more new burden on verifiers, who need to understand exactly what they want and so what they should ask for, and to know what data they don't need?
             * What is business model? What are threats?
          * We think security is failing right now because verifiers DON'T have burden, but this is a lot.
             * How can we minimize this?
             * Especially when individuals, not businesses?
             * How much burden do we want to put on thmem?
             * Can we create templates for common usages by verifiers?
             * Not just a "Trusted" flowchart, it's "reasonable risk", and that's more difficult to explain.
       * Also:
       * Elision
         * Great UIs
       * Inclusion Proofs
         * Standard Proofs
         * Multi-datum Proofs
         * Multi-Level Proofs??
         * Proofs with Unknown Lower Leaves
         * Great UIs
       * Correlation
         * How to Enable
         * How to Disable
         * How to Disable while Still Supporting 
       * Herd Privacy
         * Find Use Cases
         * How to Anonymously Distribute Proofs
       * Modeling Data Structures
         * Schema
         * Graphs
       * Inclusion of New Tech
         * Zero-Knowledge Proofs
       * Deployed Tech
         * Ultimate Rubber Hits the Road Moment
         * Repos
         * [More]
   * IP: Open, we protect our EXPERTISE
* **The Company/Team** [1-3 pages]
   * Chris
   * Wolf
   * Shannon
   * Partnership with Sparrow to Improve Deployment?
   * Vision for Company/Expected Impact [5 years]
      * Center of Envelope development
      * Developed standard
      * Working with dozens of companies for Envelope implementation
      * Larger staff
* **Intellectual Merits:** [min: 5 pages, recommended : 5-6 pages]
   * Technical Details
      * Deterministic Representation
      * Merkle Tree
      * Signatures across Hashes
      * Holder-Based Elision
      * Recursive
      * Expandable
         * Compression
         * Encryption
         * Graphs
         * Salts
      * Interoperability
      * Gordian Transport Protocol
   * Why it's Innovative 
      * Not just hashes to checksum data
      * Practical use of Data Minimization
      * Variable levels of correlation
      * Holder Elision
      * Inclusion Proofs
    * R&D Plan with Timeline [??]
      * Finalize Correlation Questions
         * Study problem
         * Propose solutions
         * Put them out to public
         * Revise
         * Publish paper(s)
         * Revise
         * --
         * Proof of Concepts
            * Journalism
            * Software Integrity/Development
            * Sensor Data
            * Neo4J?
            * [maybe of herd privacy, inclusion, etc. too]
      * Finalize Inclusion Proofs Questions
      * Finalize the Herd Privacy Questions
      * Work with Third Parties for Deployment
         * See what's missing and revise
    * Key Objectives for Phase I [IMPORTANT]
      * _"questions that must be answered to determine the technical AND commercial feasibility of the proposed concept"_
      * Close Out Research
         * Correlation
            * Can unwanted correlation be prevented while maintaining ability to create inclusion proofs?
         * Inclusion Proofs
            * Can inclusion proofs be effortlessly produced for a variety of data structures?
         * Herd Privacy
            * Does herd privacy have obvious benefits that can be sold to partners?
         * Well Document It for Partners
      * Close Out Risks
         * Unintended Correlation
         * Abuse of Elision
            * Can radical elision be supported without creating the opportunity for major abuse?
      * At Least Three PoC
         * Repos
         * Journalism?
         * Bitcoin Wallet
      * Start of Standardization with IETF/IRTF
    * Critical Technical Milestones for Market
       * Real-Life Deployments
       * Adoption of Standard
       * Critical mass for Infrastructure in One Field
* **Broader Impacts:** [1-2 pages]
   * Positive Societal Outcomes
      * Data minimization as a default
      * User privacy as a default
         * Protect people from selling of data [because it's not there!]
         * Protect people from correlation of data
         * Protection of physical address, etc [safety!]
      * Self-sovereign control of data
         * Control of own credentials
   * Economic Benefits
      * Make US competitive with European companies & GDPR
      * Improve national defense with protected content

## Notes

* **Solicitation**
   * NSF 23-515: Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase I

* **Cover Page**
   * Cybersecurity and Authentication (CA)
   * CA3. Data Privacy and Integrity
* **SBIR (or STTR) Phase I Questionnaire**
* **SBIR (or STTR) Phase I Certification Questions**
* **Project Summary** 1 PAGE MAX, THIRD PERSON, NOT ABSTRACT
   * Three Headers:  To be valid, a heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line.
   * **Overview:** Describe the potential outcome(s) of the proposed activity in terms of a product, process, or service. Provide a list of key words or phrases that identify the areas of technical expertise to be invoked in reviewing the proposal and the areas of application that are the initial target of the technology. Provide the subtopic name.
   * **Intellectual Merit:** This section MUST begin with "This Small Business Innovation Research (or Small Business Technology Transfer) Phase I project..." Address the intellectual merits of the proposed activity. Briefly describe the technical hurdle(s) that will be addressed by the proposed R&D (which should be crucial to successful commercialization of the innovation), the goals of the proposed R&D, and a high-level summary of the plan to reach those goals.
   * **Broader Impacts:** Discuss the expected outcomes in terms of how the proposed project will bring the innovation closer to commercialization under a sustainable business model. In this box, also describe the potential commercial and market impacts that such a commercialization effort would have, if successful. Also discuss potential broader societal and economic impacts of the innovation (e.g., educational, environmental, scientific, societal, or other impacts on the nation and the world).
* **Project Summary** 15 PAGES MAX [10 MIN]
   * Suggested Format:
   * Elevator Pitch (no more than one page). 
      * The Motivation. Describe the company’s motivation for pursuing this project and the expected impact from the proposed technology, if successful.
      * The Customer. Describe the expected customer for the innovation. Which unmet customer or market needs are you addressing?
      * The Value Proposition. What are the benefits to the customer of your proposed innovation? What is the key differentiator of your company or technology? What is the potential societal value of your innovation?
      * The Innovation: Succinctly describe your innovation. Which aspects are original and transformative compared to the current state of the art? How is the innovation differentiated from any work done by others in the field? (This section may contain information excluded from the Project Summary because of the proprietary nature.)
   * The Commercial Opportunity (recommended length: 1-3 pages)
      * Describe the market and addressable market for the innovation.
      * Discuss the business economics and market drivers in the target industry.
      * How has the market opportunity been validated? Describe your customers and your basic business model. Describe the competition. How do you expect the competitive landscape may change by the time your product/service enters the market?
      * What are the key commercial risks in bringing your innovation to market?
      * Describe your commercialization approach. Discuss the potential economic benefits associated with your innovation and provide estimates of the revenue potential, detailing your underlying assumptions.
      * Describe the resources needed to implement your commercialization approach.
      * Describe your plan and expected timeline to secure these resources.
   * The Technical Solution (recommended length: 2-4 pages)
      * Briefly describe the proposed solution and the technology on which it is based. At what stage of technical development is the innovation? (A more detailed description can be provided in the Technical Discussion and R&D Plan, as described below).
      * Describe the key technical challenges and risks in bringing the innovation to market. Which of these will be your focus and what is the general scientific approach in the proposed Phase I project?
      * Describe the status of the intellectual property associated with this project and how you plan to protect it.
   * The Company/Team (recommended length: 1-3 pages)
      * Describe the company founders or key participants in this proposed project. What level of effort will these persons devote to the proposed Phase I activities? How does the background and experience of the team enhance the credibility of the effort; have they previously taken similar products/services to market?
      * Describe your vision for the company and the company's expected impact over the next five years.
      * If the company has existing operations, describe how the proposed effort would fit into these activities.
      * Provide the date when the company was founded and describe the revenue history, if any, for the past three years. Include and explicitly state government funding and private investment in this discussion.
      * Will you have consultants or subawardees working on this project? If so, what is their expertise, affiliation, and contribution to the project?
   * Intellectual Merits: Technical Discussion and R&D Plan (minimum length: 5 pages, recommended length: 5-6 pages)
      * The Intellectual Merits section should begin with the header “Intellectual Merits” on its own line.
      * Describe the innovation in sufficient technical detail for a knowledgeable reviewer in the field to understand why it is innovative and how it can provide benefits in the target applications. Supplement this description with any necessary background information.
      * Describe the key objectives to be accomplished during the Phase I research, including the questions that must be answered to determine the technical AND commercial feasibility of the proposed concept.
      * Describe the critical technical milestones that must be met to get the product or service to market.
      * Present an R&D plan, with proposed timeline. What are the objectives, and what experiments, computations, success criteria, etc. are planned to reach those objectives? The R&D plan must leverage fundamental science or engineering research and techniques.
   * Broader Impacts: (recommended length: 1-2 pages)
      * The Broader Impacts section should begin with the header “Broader Impacts” on its own line.
      * Describe how the proposed product or service offers the potential for broader societal and economic benefit (through commercialization under a sustainable business model) as outlined in the NSF Merit Review Broader Impacts Criteria.
      * The NSF SBIR/STTR program funds the development of new, high-risk technology innovations intended to generate positive societal outcomes. Examples of such outcomes include (but are not limited to) those found in the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (P.L. 114-329, Section 102) Broader Impacts Review Criterion update:
         * Increasing the economic competitiveness of the United States.
Advancing of the health and welfare of the American public.
         * Supporting the national defense of the United States.
         * Enhancing partnerships between academia and industry in the United States.
Developing an American STEM workforce that is globally competitive through improved pre-kindergarten through grade 12 STEM education and teacher development, and improved undergraduate STEM education and instruction.
         * Improving public scientific literacy and engagement with science and technology in the United States.
         * Expanding participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM.
   * The NSF SBIR/STTR program seeks plans to generate these outcomes as well as related societal benefits. Discuss the envisioned broader impacts and the specific implementation plan, including: the relevant metrics and measurement plan; potential partners to enhance the likelihood of success (including an assessment of the value proposition to the partner, their reasons for engaging in this project, and a summary of the engagement to date); potential risks and associated mitigation strategies; and additional anticipated needs for resources and the plan to secure them.
* References Cited. Provide a comprehensive listing of relevant references, including websites or relevant URLs, patent numbers, and other relevant intellectual property citations.
   * IETF
   * Can list our own websites
   * other?
* Budgets
   * Personnel, in months
      * Chris
   * Travel
      * One domestic travel trip for up to two persons (the PI is required to attend, and we recommend also including an individual who leads the related business/commercial efforts, if not the PI) should be budgeted to attend a three-day Grantee Conference in the DC area (pending COVID-19 related travel and social distancing considerations). The intent of this conference is to discuss the research program with the cognizant NSF SBIR/STTR Program Director, learn about preparing an NSF SBIR/STTR Phase II proposal, and hear from experts on various topics of interest to technical entrepreneurs. A written statement acknowledging the attendance requirement at the mandatory grantee conference is required on the Budget Justification page. A reasonable budget estimate is $2,000 per person to cover the conference registration fees and travel expenses. 
      * Conference attendence/travel? [no foreign travel!]
   * Consultants
      * $1000/day max
      * Probably Wolf & me here
      * Need letter affirming their availability [SUPPLEMENTARY DOCS]
   * Small Business Fee: 7%
* **Additional Single Copy Documents** [NOT MORE!]
   * Invitation Email [as PDF]
* Budget Justification
   * The Budget Justification is uploaded in the Budget Module of Research.gov as a single PDF file. Provide details for each non-zero line item of the budget, including a description and cost estimates. Identify each line item by its letter and number (e.g., G.5 - Subawards). Each non-zero line item should be described in the Budget Justification, but several sections also require more specific information as detailed below. There is a five-page limit each for the Budget Justification. Any letters of commitment from institutions proposed as subawardees in the effort, or individuals proposed as consultants in the effort, should be included in the “Supplementary Documents” section of the proposal, not in the Budget Justification. You can find a sample budget and subaward budget, with justifications, here: https://seedfund.nsf.gov/apply/full-proposal/.
   * Lines A and B - Personnel. Provide the names and titles of all personnel and a concise description of their responsibilities on the project, including their budgeted time commitment. Provide the actual annual salary information and calculation that justifies the amounts requested.
   * Line C - Fringe Benefits. Describe what is included in fringe benefits and the calculations that were used to arrive at the amount requested. It is recommended that proposers allot funds for fringe benefits here ONLY if the proposer's usual (established) accounting practices provide that fringe benefits be treated as direct costs. Otherwise, fringe benefits should be included in Line I (Indirect Costs).
   * Line E.1 - Domestic Travel. Describe the purpose for domestic travel and acknowledge attendance at the grantee conference. For trips other than the grantees conference, include the expected number of trips, number of persons traveling, length of each trip, purpose and destination of each trip, and a rough breakdown of the expected cost of each trip.
   * Line G.1 - Materials and Supplies. Provide an itemized list of the materials and supplies, with the quantity, unit cost, and total cost for each item. Items with a total line item cost over $5,000 may require quote or pricing documentation after the proposal has been reviewed, as part of the NSF SBIR/STTR Program Director’s due diligence efforts. Please see section VI (NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I Award Considerations) for details.
   * Line G.3 - Consultant Services. Include a copy of the signed Letter of Commitment in the proposal’s “Supplementary Documents” section.
   * Line G.5 - Subawards. Include a few sentences describing the scope and objective of the subaward.
   * Line G.6 - Other. Any single cost of more than $5,000 in this line may require pricing documentation (e.g., a quote, past purchase order, link to online price list) after the proposal has been reviewed.
   * Line I - Indirect Costs. Provide the calculations that were used to arrive at the amount requested. Please briefly indicate the major cost categories that are included as indirect costs.
   * Line K - Small Business Fee. Provide the calculation that was used to arrive at the amount requested.
* Senior Personnel Documents. For the Principal Investigator and for each person listed in the “Senior Personnel” section of the proposal, additional documentation is required as below.
Biographical Sketch. All SBIR/STTR proposals submitted to NSF are required to include Biographical Sketches for each PI, co-PI (if STTR), and Senior Personnel (individuals with critical expertise who will be working on the project and are employed at the proposing company or at a subaward organization) Proposers are encouraged to review recent guidance on NSF-Approved Formats for the Biographical Sketch (https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/biosketch.jsp). Biographical sketches are limited to three pages per person.
   * Current and Pending Support. Information in this module is collected so that reviewers have visibility into the potential availability of company personnel during the period of performance if awarded. All SBIR/STTR proposals submitted to NSF are required to include Current and Pending Support for each PI, co-PI (if STTR), and Senior Personnel Proposers are encouraged to review recent guidance on NSF-Approved Formats for Current and Pending (Other) Support (https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/biosketch.jsp).
   * Types of Support / Activities. For the PI, co-PI (if STTR), and each of the Senior Personnel listed on line A or B of the budget, provide information regarding each of the following that could commit this person to a required level of effort during the proposed Phase I performance period, regardless of whether the person will receive a salary from the activity:
   * All current and pending support for ongoing projects and proposals (from any source, including in kind support or equity investment), including continuing grant and contract funding.
   * Proposals submitted to other agencies. Concurrent submission of a proposal to other organizations will not influence the review of the proposal submitted to NSF.
Upcoming submissions.
   * The Phase I proposal being submitted is considered "pending" and therefore MUST appear in the Current and Pending Support form for each PI and Senior Personnel.
   * Personnel.
Collaborators & Other Affiliation Information (Single Copy Document): For the PI and each of the Senior Personnel, list all institutional affiliations (other employers, consulting relationships, officer/director/trustee roles, etc.) and collaborators (co-authors, scientific partners, student/advisor relationships) that have occurred in the last four years, using the instructions and spreadsheet template found at https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/coa.jsp. This document will not be viewable by reviewers but will be used by NSF to manage the selection of reviewers. Also see guidance in the PAPPG.
* DMP
   * With SBIR/STTR research two different scenarios are likely to exist with respect to dissemination of digital data: Option (1) none of the data will be publically disseminated, or Option (2) some of the data will be disseminated through peer reviewed publications. According to the DOE FOA, “In cases where none of the data generated as a result of the grant will be shared, a sufficient DMP would include the following statement, “It is anticipated that all generated digital data will be protected as SBIR/STTR data and therefore will not be publicly shared during the applicable SBIR/STTR data protection period.” As any digital data will be at least 4 years old when it is no longer protected SBIR/STTR data, the effort to release such data will exceed any potential impact or value of the actual release. If any data generated under this award is published, an effort will be made to also release any related digital data that is not protected SBIR/STTR data.” Please note that if you do not include a DMP with your application, Option 1 for the DMP will be assumed for your application.


--

NOTES:

When preparing your proposal please remember that the program seeks to fund the development of high-risk leading-edge technology innovations with the potential for substantial commercial/societal impact. In your proposal it is important that you focus on the commercially relevant high-technical-risk elements of your proposed project and that you present (i) **a clear description of the specific technical innovation(s)** you plan to develop under a Phase I award, (ii) **a credible R&D plan for overcoming the technical challenges**, and (iii) **clearly-defined success metrics**. It is important also to address commercial matters such as **the market need and value proposition** associated with your innovation; **the market opportunity**; **the product-market fit**; **specific target customers**; the **competition and your competitive advantage**; and your **proposed commercialization model**. I suggest also that you include in your proposal up to **3 letters of support, including at least one from a prospective customer or commercial collaborator**, since this will help confirm the market opportunity and value proposition.
* Optional.
   * Letter(s) of Support (Strongly recommended). Letters of Support act as an indication of market validation for the proposed innovation and add significant credibility to the proposed effort. No more than three letters of support should be used to demonstrate that the company has initiated dialogue with relevant stakeholders (e.g., potential customers, strategic partners or investors) for the proposed innovation and that a legitimate business opportunity may exist should the technology prove feasible. The letter(s) must contain affiliation and contact information for the signatory stakeholder. Letters of commitment and supporting documents from consultants and subcontractors (or any personnel identified in the Budget Justification) are NOT considered letters of support.
   * Other Personnel Biographical Information (Strongly recommended). This optional section can be used to provide additional biographical information about project participants who are not listed as senior personnel for the small business or for a subawardee as well as Letters of Support. Documents must use the format provided in the PAPPG instructions. Biographical sketches are limited to three pages per person.
   * Other Supplementary Documents. The required supplementary documents of an NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I proposal are limited to the following (if applicable).
      * Letters of Commitment from Subawardees and Consultants (Strongly recommended). Please refer to section V.A.C “Budget and Subaward Budgets” for details.
* Additional Single Copy Documents (required). In this section, proposers must submit a copy of the email invitation from an NSF SBIR/STTR Program Director – in response to a submitted Project Pitch – inviting the company to submit a full proposal. Please convert this invitation email to a PDF before uploading.

---

* Technical Innovation
   * Not existing technology to do something new
   * Not combining existing techs in a straightforward way
   * Whole new way of doing things
   * Unproven
   * Not like anything else on market
* Technical Risk
   * May simply not work!
   * Out there on the frontier of possibility
   * Some will fail!
* Commercial Case
   * Evidence of Problem/solution fit
      * Whose problem will we solve
      * Must be important enough that they'll pay for it
      * IMPORTANT enough that customers will PAY
   * Strong commercial intent
      * Not just RESEARCH
      * Ends: commercialization of technology
      * Commerically focused company!
* DO NOT submit a proposal that lacks sufficient discussion of the NSF and solicitation merit review criteria: intellectual merit, broader impacts, and commercial potential.
* DO NOT submit a proposal lacking research based on techniques drawn from fundamental science or engineering. A proposal must be explicitly responsive to the solicitation requirements. Section V.D recommends a minimum length of 10 pages for the Project Description document to provide sufficient detail on the key technical, societal and commercial aspects of the project.
* Present evidence that the proposed technology is innovative, that development of it entails high technical risk, and that you have a credible plan to establish technical feasibility during Phase I. Convince the reviewers that the company and the project team have the necessary expertise, resources, and support to carry out the project and that they are committed to building a viable business around the product/service being developed. Finally, present a compelling case that the project will significantly advance the readiness of the technology and strengthen its commercial position. 

* Phase 1 is FEASABILITY
   * $250k, one year
   * Deal with Technical Risk
* Phase 2 is DEVELOPMENT
   * Moving toward market
   * $1M


* ALSO SEE https://science.osti.gov/SBIRLearning/FAQs#one

===

