Eligibility Quick Check

What Counts as Technological Uncertainty Under SR&ED?

Technological uncertainty is the starting point of every SR&ED claim. Get this concept wrong and the rest of the claim — systematic investigation, technological advancement — doesn’t hold together. Get it right, and it becomes much easier to see which of your projects actually qualify.

The CRA Definition

According to CRA guidance, technological uncertainty exists when a competent professional in the field cannot determine, in advance, whether a particular approach will work, what the outcome will be, or how to achieve a desired result using existing knowledge, techniques, and standard practice.

The key phrase is “cannot determine in advance.” It’s not about whether the work was hard, expensive, or time-consuming — it’s about whether the answer was genuinely unknown until you tested it.

Uncertainty vs. Difficulty

A project can be difficult without being technologically uncertain. Difficult but well-understood work — applying documented engineering methods to a known problem, however complex — is not SR&ED-eligible on its own. Uncertain work is where existing knowledge runs out and your team has to generate new understanding to move forward.

Signs technological uncertainty is present

  • No published method, textbook approach, or vendor solution addresses your specific combination of requirements
  • Multiple technically sound approaches exist and it isn’t clear which (if any) will work
  • Your team can’t predict the outcome of a design or process change without testing it
  • Existing tools or materials behave unpredictably outside their documented operating range

Signs it’s likely routine work instead

  • A vendor manual, standard, or established method already tells you how to do this
  • The main challenge is time, budget, or coordination rather than technical unknowns
  • You’re applying a known solution to a new customer or context without adapting the underlying approach

Documenting Uncertainty as It Happens

The strongest evidence of technological uncertainty is written down before the outcome is known — a design note asking “will this scale past X?”, a ticket describing an unpredictable failure, a hypothesis about why an approach might work. Reconstructing this after the fact is possible but weaker; capturing it in real time is what CRA reviewers respond to best.

About The Author

Dale Doering

Dale Doering is the owner of SRED Consultants Inc., helping businesses navigate the complexities of Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) claims. With a strong understanding of the technical and interpretive requirements of the SR&ED program, Dale works with companies to identify eligible projects, document technological challenges, and clearly demonstrate the systematic experimentation or analysis undertaken to achieve advancement. His approach focuses on translating complex technical work into well-supported SR&ED claims, helping clients maximize eligible opportunities while maintaining a clear understanding of the program’s requirements.

Recent Posts

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the CRA definition of technological uncertainty for SR&ED?

Technological uncertainty exists when a competent professional cannot determine in advance whether a specific approach will succeed, what the outcome will be, or how to achieve a desired result using existing standard practices and documented knowledge.

Technical difficulty involves complex, time-consuming, or expensive work that can still be solved using standard engineering methods or documented practices. Technological uncertainty occurs only when standard knowledge runs out and your team must generate new understanding through testing to find an answer.

– No published textbook, vendor solution, or method covers your exact requirements.

– Multiple viable technical paths exist, but it is impossible to know which will work without testing.

– Existing tools or materials act unpredictably outside their standard operating ranges.

– Your team cannot predict the exact outcome of a process or design change in advance.

Work is considered routine if established standards or vendor manuals already outline the solution, if the primary hurdles are budget or time management rather than technical unknowns, or if you are simply deploying a known method in a new context without modifying the core technical approach.

Contemporaneous documentation—such as design notes, failure tickets, and written hypotheses created before the project outcome is known—provides the strongest evidence for CRA reviewers. Reconstructing technical unknowns after a project is finished creates a much weaker claim.

Related Post