For projects that needed improvement, he would also offer pertinent feedback, such as: the content was too broad, the objectives were unfocused...
As for the projects he ultimately rejected, he spent very little time on them. They all received classic, generic critiques:
1. The research scope is vague, with no clear innovation.
2. The scientific question is poorly defined or not identified at all.
3. Insufficient feasibility, primarily due to technical difficulties in implementation, with the proposal failing to provide adequate support or justify the necessity of funding this as an independent project.
4. A similar project has already been approved.
5. The overall quality of the proposal is poor.
...
The last one was a catch-all. For certain projects he didn't intend to pass, he could cite issues with the budget or the research foundation. Everyone knew these weren't the real deciding factors, but they worked as an excuse every time.
