How to use the ETL platform stack to draft, polish, submit, and resubmit a DoD Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program application. The pipeline compresses a 3 to 4 month writing cycle to 6 to 8 weeks of focused work.
The FY26 Toxic Exposures Research Program (TERP) is open. The Translational Research Award supports work that bridges basic science to clinical application for military-related toxic exposures. Goals span Predict and Prevent, Diagnose, and Treat. Preliminary data required. Partnering PI option (clinician + research scientist) is the structural feature that fits Wright State well.
The same seven stages serve every CDMRP application, whether TERP, BCRP (Breast Cancer), PRCRP (Peer Reviewed Cancer), or the other thirty-plus programs under the CDMRP umbrella. The pipeline is mechanism-general; the program-specific framing changes the prompts you pass to each tool.
| Stage | Tool | What you get |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Test the central idea | The Gauntlet → | Eight AI-simulated judges score your idea across eight dimensions (Structure, Viability, Risk, Narrative, Evidence, Cultural, Psych, Compliance). Catches fatal premise problems before you spend six weeks writing. |
| 2. Build the "where the field is now" literature | SLR Studio → | Systematic review on prior toxic-exposure work, with documented PubMed/Excel-equivalent rigor. The literature foundation that anchors your Background and Significance section. |
| 3. Refine the research design (where TRA reviewers savage) | Methods Coach → | Strengths, weaknesses, anticipated reviewer criticisms grounded in real literature, defense strategies. Tightens the Approach section before reviewers see it. |
| 4. Pre-submission peer review | Reviewer Panel → | Three AI-simulated reviewers read your draft independently. Pick Methodologist + Stats Hardliner + Domain Expert for CDMRP. Editor decision computed from the panel. Catches what real reviewers would catch. |
| 5. Editorial last-look | Pre-submission Check with Jules → | Journal-fit check (TRA scope alignment), reviewer-bait flags, citation hygiene, structural compliance, voice and clarity. Final polish before submission. |
| 6. Submit | External | eBRAP for CDMRP pre-applications; Grants.gov for full applications. Watch the deadlines for FY26 TERP specifically. |
| 7. Respond to the Summary Statement | Resubmission Builder → | CDMRP is one of the 14 mechanisms in the matrix. Consumer-reviewer awareness baked in. Critique-by-critique response drafts, draft Introduction to the Resubmission page, attempt-cycle strategy (CDMRP allows 1 resubmission). |
CDMRP reviewers, criteria, and conventions diverge from NIH in three ways that matter for how you write the application:
The Initiating PI handles administrative submission; the Partnering PI brings complementary expertise. Each PI is named on a separate award if recommended for funding. For TERP specifically, the structural fit is a clinician (Wright State's clinical faculty) plus a basic scientist (AFRL/711 HPW or similar). Each contributes irreplaceable expertise; together they address the research question better than either would alone.
The standard CDMRP application timeline assumes 3 to 4 months of focused writing. Using the ETL stack compresses each phase substantially. The numbers below are for a faculty member with the science already in hand and a Partnering PI confirmed.
WSU has a structural fit for CDMRP programs that other institutions don't: clinical faculty (Boonshoft School of Medicine, the VA Dayton system) plus basic-science partners at AFRL / 711 HPW just up the road. The Partnering PI option is built for this pairing.
Saber Hussain (AFRL/711 HPW/RH, Senior International Focal Point Lead) has offered to assist WSU faculty interested in the FY26 TERP. He is the right starting point for the AFRL side of a Partnering PI arrangement.
Courtney has been successful with this mechanism after multiple attempts. That's the normal CDMRP trajectory; the Resubmission Builder is exactly the tool for that learning curve.