For this question, the first (closed) version looked like this:
The competitive application process for CNRS jobs has opened this week, and part of the required documents are a report on past work, as well as a project for future work (together with a list of CNRS labs where this work could be done). There is not much information about what these are expected to contain; the instructions only specifies "Report on research completed" and "Proposed research program".
More specifically, for a "chargé de recherche" (junior scientist) position, how much detail should be given in these two documents? How long should they be? Is there a typical structure that one should follow for them? It is my understanding that the national committee members may not (and in my case are not, I checked) experts in the specific domain of the applicants, there is e.g. a committee for all of sociology, another for "brain, cognition, behavior" and so on.
I will try to write the unclear parts one by one:
First, there is no introduction.
- What is CNRS?
- What does it stand for?
- Who are you?
- How is CNRS related with you?
After that, you mention some reports out of nowhere.
- What are those reports?
- Which instructions specify those reports?
In the second paragraph, it gets worse. You start with more specifically, even though there is not a tiny bit of specification (see 1-4). After you ask multiple questions about those documents mentioned in the first paragraph, you suddenly jump to the committee members.
- What committee?
- How are those members related to your question?
- How are their area of expertise related to your question?
You cannot assume that people know the answers to all nine questions listed above. Usually, four or five of them makes the text unclear. In your case, you had nine.
For this question, I believe nothing is wrong with people. The question seems to be asked at random.
What is CNRS? It's supposedly a research center somewhere in Europe but it's been asked about a few times already on this site. I hope that asking this question is going to clarify things.
If it was asked a few times, why do you ask again? Just upvote the question and wait for an answer. This alone is a reason for closing the question because it is duplicate. Also what things do you want to clarify? Do you assume everyone reads this question also read your first question? Again, this question is not clear at all to me.
Just something popped into your mind and you asked in Academia.SE. As an example, this question also got several downvotes.
The answer to your question is a matter of Google search and reading through the results.
As a side note, it would probably be to your best interest to drop "I'm doing everything right. What is wrong with these people?" and move to "how can I improve my questions?"