The Psychology of R&D Reporting for RDEC Claims

The psychology behind under-reporting

Scientists and engineers are trained to solve problems — not to dramatise them. Once a challenge is overcome, the memory of uncertainty fades. This hindsight bias makes past difficulties feel “obvious in retrospect”.

At the same time, many technical professionals are also naturally modest. They view progress as part of their job rather than something exceptional. A geneticist improving crop resilience or an engineer designing a milling process for a new material, may see their activities as “just routine work”, even when it involves advancing scientific or technological knowledge.

A real-world example

One scientist I work with has spent years breeding seeds for better disease resistance and yield, using bio-markers to track and select traits. He dismissed his work as “routine seed improvement”. It took two years to convince him that what he was doing — designing experiments, analysing data, and iterating hypotheses — qualified as R&D for tax purposes.

By then, his company had missed out on over £100,000 in R&D Tax Credits — money that they really needed to support the cost of their innovation focused activities.

Why this matters for RDEC compliance

HMRC’s RDEC guidance focuses on demonstrating technological uncertainty and systematic investigation. When modesty or hindsight bias cause teams to understate their challenges, vital evidence of those uncertainties is lost — weakening claims and, in some cases, excluding entire projects that qualify.

Under-reporting doesn’t just reduce claim value. It can make an otherwise compliant claim appear incomplete, potentially attracting HMRC scrutiny.

Drawing out the right detail

The key is in how we ask questions and frame discussions:

• Ask about failure, not success. “What didn’t work at first?” or “What surprised you?” often unlocks the true story of uncertainty.

• Use project timelines. Reconstructing events chronologically helps people recall what they didn’t know at the time.

• Validate with evidence. Connect recollections to data, prototypes, or trials to demonstrate systematic investigation.

• Encourage pride, not modesty. Remind teams that acknowledging difficulty isn’t self-promotion — it’s compliance.

Behavioural insight meets compliance

The strongest RDEC claims come from combining behavioural understanding with technical rigour. Recognising the modesty and hindsight bias in technical teams helps claim preparers elicit richer, more accurate accounts of innovation — and secure the relief businesses deserve.

In the end, good reporting isn’t about exaggeration — it’s about telling the truth before time and modesty edit it away.

Visit Claiming RDEC Index Page