Note that there are some science reviewers who would argue that you have not begun to perform SR&ED until you have actually begun trying to close the gap, and that the recognition, analysis and reconnaissance around forming a hypothesis about the closing of the gap constitutes “due diligence” only. From my perspective, if you can already see that routine methods and approaches will not apply, and you can articulate why they don’t or won’t apply, then it should not be necessary to invest in the futile pursuit of those routine methods – you should be able to jump straight into the experimental development.
Do you have a project or two that is associated with those technical pain points? Or do you have a project with a technology gap, for which you know that routine methods will be inadequate? These are candidates for a possible SR&ED claim, and it is best to identify them early, so that you can ensure that records are being kept and technical activities are being tracked, once you get started working on them.
We have entered a new era, in which a failure to provide adequate supporting evidence may ultimately sink your ability to claim otherwise eligible work and costs. Identifying your SR&ED projects early is the first step toward ensuring that you keep the records you will need later, for a claim.
Bruce Madole