I want to dispute the low score assigned to the comment below. I will share the evaluation criteria below only to make it easier to visualise the dispute basis.
As there is no translation from the four-level table to the 10-point score, is it reasonable to assume that each level equals 2.5 points?
Regarding relevance, the comment received 4 points, which corresponds to level 2. In the post, we were discussing the possibility of merging all SOS posts and presenting a unified proposal. I brought up the point that, in my opinion, we were lacking estimates of cost and funding for each topic within it. Without it, we would risk approving a goal that was not feasible. This positioning was backed by content from the original Mission, Vision and Purpose post. I want to request a reassessment of my current score.
Regarding depth of analysis, the comment also received 4 points (level 2, acceptable). I would like to request a reassessment of my current score, based on the same points raised previously and the concept I outlined in my comment (strategic planning), specifically regarding the current structure (MVP and SOS), which lacked important definitions before moving to execution. L2Beats reinforced that in their comment.
Regarding Timing, Clarity and Impact, I understand that they are related to the previous items, but I also want to request a review. Specifically of “Impact”, as 2 points equals level 1.
