TNO
The research already existed. What it needed was a carrier.
What the gap is actually made of
Applied research institutes are very good at producing answers and structurally poor at producing companies. That is not a criticism of them; it is what they are for. The result is a shelf of results that are technically finished and commercially unowned, and the gap between those two states is almost never technical.
What it usually needs is someone willing to be wrong in public on a specific date. A research programme can hold a question open indefinitely and be doing its job. A company cannot. Moving one into the other is mostly a change in who carries the consequence.
So the useful role here is not scientific. It is being the party that turns up after the science, takes the result off the shelf, and accepts a deadline for it.
I am not a scientist. I am useful in the room after the science.

Narrow on purpose
The collaboration is deliberately narrow. One line of work, one set of people, one question about whether it can be made at a scale that matters — rather than a memorandum of understanding covering everything either party might ever do, which is the usual shape and produces the usual nothing.
It will either produce a company or it will produce a very clear reason why not. Both of those are results. Only one of them is a press release.
