How to Write a DACHUANG Proposal: Section Checklist, Scoring Example, and Submission Review

Acadwrite Team · Last updated July 24, 2026

Proposal forms and scoring sheets differ by institution. Download your institution's current documents first, then map every section and score item to supporting evidence. This guide demonstrates a review method with public institutional forms and scoring sheets; it does not treat one institution's scores as a national rule.

Contents

1. What the reviewers' scoring sheet looks like
2. Section-by-section checks and common problems
3. Choosing among the three project categories
4. Return and submission-failure checklist

What the reviewers' scoring sheet looks like

The example below is the public DACHUANG project scoring rubric from Changzhou Institute of Technology on a 100-point scale. Institutional rules differ, but the three-part structure—project rationale, research content, and existing foundation—appears consistently across the rubrics we reviewed and offers a useful general reference.

Primary criterion	Points	Secondary criteria (10 points each)
Project rationale	30 points	Significance and application prospects (10) · Research objective (10) · Domestic and international research status (10)
Research content and methods	40 points	Research content (10) · Innovations and distinctive features (10) · Research methods and technical roadmap (10) · Expected objectives and outputs (10)
Existing foundation	30 points	Prior work (10) · Available conditions (10) · Team composition (10)

In this rubric, research content and methods account for 40 points, existing foundation for 30, and project rationale for 30. Replace these values with the actual allocation in your institution's rubric.

Section-by-section checks and common problems

For a complete set of proposal sections, refer to the sample proposal from Changsha University of Science and Technology: basic information (project lead, adviser, and member responsibilities) → eight project-rationale sections (summary, objective, research content, domestic and international research status, innovations and features, technical roadmap/problems to solve/expected outputs, schedule, and existing foundation) → budget by expense category and stage → approval chain from adviser to school, university expert panel, and leadership group. The following checks cover five major sections.

Domestic and international research status and trends

Scoring criterion: domestic and international research status (10 points)

Review standard: Describe existing research by subject, conditions, and problem. Every claim about the research landscape should link to a verifiable source.

Common problem: The proposal merely says that “there is no relevant research at home or abroad,” without a search scope, literature evidence, or a specific research gap.

Innovations and distinctive features

Scoring criterion: innovations and distinctive features (10 points)

Review standard: For every innovation, explain what changes relative to prior work. Under existing foundation, list pilot experiments, code, data, or related outputs.

Common problem: The proposal uses adjectives such as “first” and “leading” without a comparison target or prior foundation.

Technical roadmap, problems to solve, and expected outputs

Scoring criteria: research methods and technical roadmap (10) plus expected objectives and outputs (10)

Review standard: Write the roadmap as inputs, processing steps, and stage outputs. Express expected results in forms that can be accepted, such as a paper, software copyright, physical prototype, or research report.

Common problem: The roadmap only repeats the research content and gives no methods, relationship among steps, or stage outputs.

Schedule

The section later compared against midterm review and final acceptance

Review standard: Divide the project period into stages. For each stage, name the owner, task, verifiable output, and completion date.

Common problem: The schedule says only “Stage 1: literature review; Stage 2: conduct research,” with no deliverable that can be checked at midterm.

Existing foundation

Scoring criterion: prior work (10 points); the entire existing-foundation category is worth 30

Review standard: List pilot experiments, data, code, equipment, papers, software copyrights, patents, and member responsibilities in order of relevance. Explain how each item supports the project.

Common problem: The proposal lists grades and general awards without explaining their relationship to the project tasks.

Research-landscape checklist

State the databases, search terms, year range, and search date.
Explain separately which problems existing work has solved and which limitations remain.
Support every claim that research is lacking with search records and representative sources.
Connect the research gap directly to this project's research question and technical roadmap.

Choosing among the three project categories: official definitions

The three definitions come from the National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program Administrative Measures (2019, No. 13). Choose a category according to the principal tasks and expected outputs.

Category	Official definition	Funding
Innovation training project	An individual or team independently designs an innovative research project, prepares the research conditions, implements the project, writes the research report, and communicates results under an adviser's guidance.	Average funding of at least RMB 20,000 per project
Entrepreneurship training project	Each student on the team takes one or more concrete roles and completes a business plan, feasibility study, simulated company operation, and entrepreneurship report.	Average funding of at least RMB 20,000 per project
Entrepreneurship practice project	Under joint guidance from university and industry advisers, students use outputs from innovation training or innovative experiments to undertake entrepreneurial practice.	Average funding of at least RMB 100,000 per project

The Administrative Measures also state that each student should, in principle, participate in only one project during the same academic year (Article 9), so confirm that members have no active project before forming a team. Average funding is at least RMB 20,000 for innovation or entrepreneurship training and RMB 100,000 for entrepreneurship practice. Institutions may add conditions on year of study, team size, advisers, and prior results; follow your institution's notice.

Return and submission-failure checklist

Before submitting, check both system and personnel conditions. System limits vary by institution. Review each point against your institution's notice and the submission system's prompts.

1
The adviser can return a proposal for revision. Complete the adviser's review and all revisions before submitting.
2
The word count or attachments exceed the limit—a common cause of failed submissions. Check them against your institution's notice.
3
The adviser already supervises too many projects—exceeding the institutional limit can block submission.
4
A member has another active project—conflicting with the rule that each student should participate in only one project in the same academic year.

Frequently asked questions

Is DACHUANG a competition?

DACHUANG is the College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program, managed through project approval, midterm review, and final acceptance. Institutions may organize project reviews, but this management process differs from competition ranking.

How long does a DACHUANG project last?

The Administrative Measures (2019, No. 13) do not set one national duration. Follow your institution's current application notice for the project period.

How does DACHUANG relate to the Challenge Cup and the China International College Students' Innovation Competition?

An official university explainer suggests that innovation-training results fit the Challenge Cup, entrepreneurship-training results fit the creative group of the national innovation competition, and entrepreneurship-practice results fit its startup group. Outputs from an approved DACHUANG project can become the basis for these competition entries.

Can first-year students apply for DACHUANG?

The Administrative Measures set no national year-of-study threshold. They only state that each student should generally participate in one project per academic year. Institutional conditions differ, so follow your academic affairs office's notice. In the example rubric, existing foundation is worth 30 points; a younger team can strengthen it by including members with prior work and choosing a topic within the adviser's established direction.

Continue reading

Complete DACHUANG process guide

How proposals, stage reports, and final reports differ

Literature research and document writing for DACHUANG

Find and read sources, then write the research landscape and proposal

Use Acadwrite for DACHUANG

From topic, literature, and data to documents for every stage

One year in a national DACHUANG project

From a research idea to a proposal and research report

How to write a national mathematical modeling contest paper

Review standards for another competition deliverable

Innovation competition project-plan guide

Requirements for using DACHUANG results in an innovation competition

Complete your DACHUANG proposal with Acadwrite

Start with an initial research idea, find and read representative sources, analyze pilot data and generate charts, then write the proposal under your institution's required sections.

Start for free