the poll is apparently not accessible to vote, but for me this is typically a seemingly good and practically bad idea: proposing an idea without demonstrating on scientific grounds that it is feasible is just a wish. How can the public judge of the feasibility of a groundbreaking idea? It is already difficult for experts! If I propose that water should be used as a fuel instead of gasoline, of course the public would find that great! So open public consultation would indeed, without any possible rescue, give the lead to fancy communication, demagogy, lobbying, and of course to what is "in the mood", i.e. already obsolete for real innovation: indeed the EC programmes already do too much of this, due to the strong power for final decisions, of political stakeholders with no technical and scientific expertise.

Great topic. So, it depends. I think project reviews as they are done today work reasonably well. Maybe too few projects are stopped, but I understand stopping project is a nightmare for many reasons.
Project reviews require to read deliverables and hear presentation, I doubt one can do a proper review without this level of care. I am not sure making the review reports public would help here.

On the other hand, today review of project proposal is closed, and maybe it could be a good idea to make those open. Project review and proposal management is clearly becoming a huge issue here, with some research centers literally flooding the EU with proposals and acceptance rates that have become grotesque. Here, besides putting some limit it would be interesting to experiment alternative ways to reviews, from open reviews to open peer reviews - as long as it does not become a marketing contest.

If you selected the 3rd option it would be interesting to know what type of project can or cannot be peer reviewed and why?