My opinion is very much in line with what Mr. Larivière was saying, that these are things that should absolutely be looked at. We will have to go further and rethink the criteria used to determine what constitutes a high quality project. Sometimes, a project description must contain a lot of details or conceptual evidence on the environment in which the researcher operates. However, that places too much weight on the institution's infrastructure, when it is not always related to the quality of the project that the researcher can carry out. These are things that also need to be reviewed.
One solution would be to ask a researcher, for example, to talk about their five publications that are most relevant to the project, rather than gathering an infinite number of pages of publications that aren't relevant. It would also be much less cumbersome for the teams to manage. There are a number of potential solutions to explore in what is also called redefining the criteria of excellence.