The impact section is written quite poorly. The risk/ challenge and this solution is given. And, proposer shows the information related to the plan, general goal, but does not have any detail or explanation for these. For example, the background problem for this project that helps the voters know the importance of the project is not given, or the way how project impact to Cardano is provided insignificantly. Proposer also does not indicate the information about the features of solution.

The proposal targeted to solve a part of challenges in enhancing the understanding on cryptos in French-speaking countries in Africa. The proposer already mention clearly that the training can enhance the knowledge of people in West Africa. However, it will be easier to understand how training will contribute to address the challenges. The proposer can provide more detailed information on this part. In addition, the aspect of training is very huge, so, including several case -studies on the contribution of training outcome as a part of challenges’ solutions. Key metrics or KPI has completely not mentioned in the proposal yet. The proposer only put a generic information on how many people will be benefited from the project. There are lack of information in both quantitative and qualitative on what the beneficiaries learn, how it contributes to address the challenges. The proposer can supplement indicator based on period as well. Although the risk was described on the proposal, it was too general to consider on solutions. It will be more clear with breakdown explanation of proposer. Trainings could be done in short time, however, how it influence to the Cardano ecosystem will be important to be emphasized by the proposer. Adding this information will help the proposer convince readers easily.

I think the whole proposal meets this challenge, creating a French-speaking program on Cardano for countries in French-speaking West Africa. The solution was to organize training courses for 200 key community influencers together with the West African Blockchain Community in 8 countries. A clear and understandable solution was provided as suggested to clearly describe the problem targeted. I like the idea and appreciate the author's clear understanding of the solution to successful implementation of the proposal. The proponent has measured possible challenges and risks and also outlined solutions to mitigate those risks.

I think this idea is very good, but at the same time risky. In short, it involves mobilizing 500 people in 8 African countries, all French speakers; these people would be from different branches, such as the press, developers, entrepreneurs, etc. thus mobilizing the French-speaking African population to integrate our community. If this works, surely the challenge objectives would be achieved. We know that the goal here is to promote projects that help both Africa and our blockchain. This proposal would certainly benefit the continent, since, with influential people from different fields knowing basic concepts of the cryptographic world, this knowledge could be spread to a good number of people. This would generate better education about Cardano, breaking down preconceptions such as “cryptocurrency is something to get rich quick”, since people would know about so many opportunities and projects that are born in our ecosystem, which has the greater truth to make the world a better place through of projects that dialogue with the humanitarian goals of the United Nations. And obviously this would have a clear reflection of the Cardano community if the number of Ada holders increases, as well as digital wallets, NFTs being minted on our blockchain, Dapps being developed and etc. The challenge here, as the authors themselves know, would be to captivate people to the point of being interested in what we have to say, teach and show about blockchain. As I mentioned, the prejudice on the subject is very high, one thing is to call Catalyst CAs to a workshop about our technologies, and another is to draw the attention of an influential journalist from country X, who already has his whole work and life routine solidly established, to stop his daily life to learn about something he may not trust. Proponents explain that they would circumvent this problem through the act of “identifying high-profile individuals in governments and cooperating with them to reach key people”. It seems like a good solution, but I would like to know more details on how this would be done. How do they intend to captivate these individuals in governments, by the way, who would these people be? Which countries are we talking about? The proponents cite the name of some cities in feasibility, but not all. Anyway, the idea is a lot and it can certainly be promising if it works, only this problem of “getting attention” is what occurs to me here.

Several KPIs were outlined to measure success, but the KPIs did not fit the roadmap. It looks like you updated the route info because in the route section the author only updated 2 training sessions, but in the data section it's the result of 4 trainings => no match between the roadmap and KPIs, so it was difficult for the community to test this proposal. This proposal is a brand new proposal by the team, not a continuation of previous projects. Therefore, errors cannot be avoided. However, for me this proposal is a pretty good idea, if this fund is not funded, hopefully you will continue it to the next fund with more certain numbers.

Proposer delivered on the goals they wanted to achieve in part 2. However, in part 1, instead of just saying 'track the progress by a self-developped web tools.', the team should introduce more about the work that tool, if it is not completed or in beta, can also share more information so that voters understand what project development will be calculated by.

The proposer only said about what they tend to use for assessing the progress and development of project. This way of writing will make the proposal be unclear. It is better for the proposer to add as detailed information as possible about what actions, indicators with set target to make proposal be measurable. One good point of this proposal is the clear intention about what concrete achievements they need to get by end of these training courses, especially how it influenced to the Cardano ecosystem. These information give more information to the readers about what aimed to achieved. However, the ways of writing can be modify to make it be more attractive to the people’ interest. There is no information about the proposal status whether it is entirely new or continuation from the former one. The proposer can include this part in the proposal

All auditability indicators suggested by bidders relate to results. I will suggest improvements. In my view, the proposal is satisfactorily auditable on the basis of the data provided, which are mostly numerical. It boils down to the number of training sessions, of people trained, of people indirectly affected (from what I could understand), number of posts on social media by people who were trained (about Cardano) and so on. They are indeed good ways to see objectively whether the intended goals have been achieved. However, it would also be interesting to do a more humanized individual follow-up of some selected ones, I don't know, maybe 5 people from each area, in order to understand just how many people were affected by the project, but also how. The team involved could establish a later contact asking for a few minutes of their attention to answer a report, it could even be in the form of google docs, with questions like “after the training, did you start investing in Ada?” or “how did you enter the world of blockchain?”, even “did you pass on the acquired knowledge to third parties?” and so on. In this way, we would have a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the process. However, what I always suggest in my evaluations is that we also have an understanding of the project development process, in addition to the final results. In other words, we understand: if the established phases were fulfilled within the deadline; whether the people they sought to train gave their opinion, were actually involved in the project; if there was any delay in the schedule, and if so, why; and that kind of thing. This would help to understand the partial results beyond the final ones. I believe this could be established by direct contact between the team and some members of the Cardano community, even better if they are natives of the countries in question. In other words, auditability is not bad, but it can improve both in terms of being more detailed and in analyzing not only the final product but also the process as a whole.