I agree - and I think having interdisciplinary approach here is going to increase the odds here. There is a ton of useful knowledge in related disciplines - often just named differently - but turns out investigating the same problem from a different angle.
Grant reviews are blind reviews - so you don’t know.
Also - and even worse - there is no rebuttal process. It gets rejected without you having a chance to clarify / convince reviewers.
Instead you’d need to resubmit and start the entire process from scratch. What a waste of resources …
It’s the final nail what made me quit pursuing a scientific career path despite having good pubs & PhD /w honours.
It’s not that it is wrong or anything - it’s just unnecessary verbose.
Which you could argue is not a problem if it won’t be read by humans anyways anymore in the near future.