After almost four decades of participating in competitive research funding -- as applicant, coordinator, evaluator, and panel member -- I have come to see a structural paradox: many participants recognize that the current system is approaching its functional limits, yet most reform measures intensify rather than alleviate the underlying dynamics. This paper documents how excellence has become decoupled from knowledge production through an increasing coupling to representability under evaluation. The discussion focuses on two domains in which this is particularly visible: competitive basic research funding and large EU consortium projects. Three accelerating trends are examined: the professionalization of proposal writing through specialized consultants, the rise of AI-assisted applications, and an evaluator shortage that forces panels to rely on reviewers increasingly distant from the actual research domains. These observations are offered not as external critique but as an insider account, in the hope that naming a widely experienced but rarely articulated pattern may enable more constructive orientation. Keywords: Research funding, Excellence, Evaluation, Goodhart's Law, Professionalization, AI-assisted proposals, Peer review crisis

翻译：在近四十年参与竞争性科研资助（作为申请人、协调人、评审人及专家组成员）的经历中，我逐渐认识到一个结构性悖论：许多参与者承认现行体系正趋近其功能极限，但多数改革措施非但未能缓解根本矛盾，反而加剧了其内在机制。本文通过分析“卓越性”如何在评估中日益与可呈现性绑定，进而与知识生产脱钩的过程，记录了这一现象。讨论聚焦于两个尤为显著的领域：竞争性基础研究资助与大型欧盟联合体项目。研究审视了三个加速发展的趋势：通过专业咨询机构实现的申请书撰写职业化、AI辅助申请工具的兴起，以及因评审专家短缺导致评审小组日益依赖远离实际研究领域的评议人。这些观察并非外部批判，而是来自体系内部的记录，旨在通过揭示这一广泛经历却鲜被言明的模式，为更建设性的改革方向提供参考。关键词：科研资助，卓越性，评估，古德哈特定律，职业化，AI辅助申请书，同行评审危机