Previous studies of the use of peer review for the allocation of competitive funding agencies have concentrated on questions of efficiency and how to make the 'best' decision, by ensuring that successful applicants are also the more productive or visible in the long term. This paper examines the components of feedback received from an unsuccessful grant application, is associated with motivating applicants career decisions to persist (reapply for funding at T[subscript 1]), or to switch (not to reapply, or else leave academia). This study combined data from interviews with unsuccessful ECR applicants (n = 19) to The Wellcome Trust 2009-19, and manual coding of reviewer comments received by applicants (n = 81). All applicants received feedback on their application at T[subscript 0] with a large proportion of unsuccessful applicants reapplying for funding at T[subscript 1]. Here, peer-review-comments-as-feedback sends signals to applicants to encourage them to "persist" (continue) or "switch" (not continue) even when the initial application has failed. Feedback associated by unsuccessful applicants as motivating their decision to resubmit had three characteristics: actionable; targeted; and fair. The results lead to identification of standards of feedback for funding agencies and peer-reviewers to promote when providing reviewer feedback to applicants as part of their peer review process. The provision of quality reviewer-reports-as-feedback to applicants, ensures that peer review acts as a participatory research governance tool focused on supporting the development of individuals and their future research plans.