The stated problem and solution is well suited to the challenge as it aims to evaluate the implementation of the "Gamers-On-Chained" sponsored proposals. The proposed solution is to apply the PIE framework to evaluate the results of the proposals sponsored by Gamers-On-Chained (F7 + F8). Based on the PIE framework, funded proposals will be evaluated against 2 criteria based on relevance (in terms of time and finance to assess the level of achievement of objectives, commitments, KPIs/measures). measures in the proposal) and performance-based criteria (used to assess the extent to which the proposed performance has been achieved in supporting the challenge). This idea is great because with the growing number of sponsored proposals today, it is a challenge for IOG to assess the performance and progress of these funded proposals. Therefore, if this concept of PIE framework is successfully applied, it will partly solve the challenge of 1.Reduce the increasing load on IOG; 2.Helps identify the performance status, issues of the entire Catalyst funding process in Fund 8, and therefore, may generate implications for solutions in subsequent funds; 3. The reports published through this proposal can be a reliable document for decentralized representatives (dREP) as well as other organizations in decision making. One good thing about this proposal is that the proposal team listed 5 risks that can be encountered during project implementation and it is great that they provide all the solutions for those risks so effectively.

This proposal is very similar to another one: P.I.E for Community Development - https://cardano.ideascale.com/c/idea/398308. The idea in the 2 proposals is to audit the proposals funded by Catalyst, starting from the assumption that the number of proposals being funded is growing very fast and it is difficult for IOG to track and monitor the progress and results of all of them. This is a real situation that really needs to be resolved, so much so that the present challenge aims to outline faster, more practical and safer strategies to promote the audit of proposals. However, the problem that I find here is that it is basically: what is the difference between the way to audit this challenge of the games in relation to the monitoring that they will do in the challenges classified as “community development”? I believe that each challenge has a unique nature, specific objectives that are very different from each other, their proposals act in different sectors (more focused on business, or technology or humanities, etc.) the way of auditing them also needs to be unique. However, this is not clarified here, in short it is not clear the difference between the auditability of the challenges present in the link I attached and in this one. Isn't it described how the P.I.E analysis framework would uniquely monitor game challenge proposals, how to differentiate and treat them in relation to others? Anyway, as much as it is a good idea, unfortunately I didn't understand very well why the same team and the same idea was launched twice and without clarifying why, exactly, the tool would be different for the challenge of games. In order for these issues to be resolved, the team would need to explain, in detail, how this proposal would differ from the other one and how the game challenge audit would be more specific than the others. Therefore, I will give it 4 stars, I believe that the idea here deserves this review in order to have its most assured impact.

The proposal is clearly aligned with the challenge, focusing on auditing through evaluation using the P.I.E framework, specifically for the Gamers On Chained challenge. The solution will have a significant impact for the Cardano community in increasing the ability to establish whether funds distributed have achieved the intended mission. The KPIs are specific and focused on delivering on criteria and indicators to evaluate funded proposals within the abovementioned challenge for fund 7 and 8. A successful solution can likely to be scaled to other challenges too.

The proposal tries to create a P.I.E (Proposal Implementation Evaluation) Framework with criteria and indicators for evaluating the conformance and performance of Gamers-On-Chained’s funded proposals (F7 + F8). If implemented according to the plan, this will give community a comprehensive view on performance of each funded proposal. From each section, the proposal has provided a thorough plan to achieve their goals and ambitions. Overall this is a well-written proposal and the team has a great chance to implement their plan. The proposal gives five main potential risks, however, the team has a clear plan to mitigate those risks.

The proposal should include audibility improvements more broadly, across all challenge settings, to more closely fit the challenge setting goals. The “Gamers on-Chained” setting is just one of twenty-three other settings. If time an energy is to be spent auditing projects, it would be more efficient if a universal approach is applied to all challenge settings, of course with any challenge setting peculiarities considered in the approach to that particular challenge setting. Tracking projects across all challenge settings will be difficult to manage, but by installing disparate auditing frameworks across each challenge setting, it will make the process unnecessarily confusing.

Audit reports for each of the funded proposals should reach as many members in the community as possible. Perhaps working with IOG or Project Catalyst, to broadcast your updates would be more beneficial than using channel specific routes. There are many YouTube channels and personalities in the space, and providing updates from just one lesser known channel would silo the reports. This approach would almost require an auditor for the auditor.

In regards to your framework, the use of conformance values is a good option. Often time projects are too ambitious in their timelines, when considering their resource availability and experience. Providing conformance updates in both project completion rates and project budget has a two-fold advantage, on one hand it allows the community to know if a project is not meeting its proposed timeline, and on the other, it gives the proposer an opportunity to justify coming back for another round of funding. Albeit, assuming that the funded proposal team is transparent and demonstrating competence. I also appreciate the framework's design to track and report on projects post completion. It would be great to know that not the funded proposals completed the project, but that it actually has value in the Cardano ecosystem. All in all this proposal presents a framework that has value, and I believe if you rework your proposal to more broadly audit funded proposals across all settings, and more broadly communicate the findings, this project would more closely fit the challenge setting goals.

This proposal runs alongside a similar proposal this team has submitted in this fund where they seek to apply a standard PIE auditing framework to a select cohort of funded proposers as a prototype. The difference is that the previous cohort is a collection of challenge settings roughly framed as "Community Development" while this proposal aims to focus on the F8 category for GameFi. (note they also have one for Miscellaneous). While the "Community Development" cohort was chosen because it did not require deep technical expertise to audit, this cohort seems to have been chosen because of the teams explicit knowledge and interest in this field. As a contrast between two potential levels of expertise and how it informs the auditing process being prototyped, this proposal has some interesting possibilities, but I am downgrading the impact on this version on the grounds that the community doesn't need multiple protoypes of the same protocol, but numerous protocols to choose between. I will be choosing only one of these two proposals to vote yes on myself, in order to leave room for other auditing teams and possibilities to attempt to achieve solutions. However it is worth noting that much of what I had to say regarding the importance of this type of prototype to Catalyst in their "P.I.E. for COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT" proposal also applies to this proposal, and I encourage the voter to read my assessment there as well.

Project progress and development can be easily measured against the KPIs the team provides:

1. Percentage of sponsored proposals evaluated using the PIE framework in the "Gamers-On-Chained" challenge (F7 + F8): 100%. 2)8 PIE report. 3)02 videos uploaded to summarize the Final PIE Report of F7 and F8. While this is a brand new proposal, it is not a continuation of a previously funded project in Catalyst. But this group includes proponents who have experience in getting funding from other previous proposals. As a result, I think they understand the Catalyst process better than anyone and it is a great idea to come up with a solution to this challenge, making it easier to evaluate the implementation of the funded proposals.

There are clear KPIs which are aligned with a detailed roadmap (spanning a year), and while ambitious, and aiming to evaluate 100% of successful funds, the updates and results will also be clear to the communities through reports, charts, and videos.

The auditability of this proposal is good, but not perfect. As with their other proposal, the team informs us of metrics, KPIs and information that would serve as content to be monitored, both in the process part and in the final results. However, as I suggested before, some bridge needs to be established with the Cardano community. We cannot expect people to go after information without it being grouped and available in a practical and organized way. With that, I suggest that they make available the data that would serve to measure progress, such as “01 video uploaded for summarizing the Final P.I.E Report”, on some online platform that can be accessed by everyone. I suggest notion, because there you can put text, images, videos and etc. And so, some members more engaged by the project could be responsible for doing this follow-up. And regarding the final results, my suggestion is that the team come up with a presentation and meet with the rest of the community sometime in Town Hall, for example, or in some specific room to debate funded proposals after the general meeting. In this meeting, important points would be exposed about whether the scenario that was imagined became reality, if the more macro objectives of the whole thing were achieved, that is: if the proposals of the games challenge were being particularly targeted and audited. With this, auditability would be better performed, we would know if both the process (partial results) and the final scenario (final results) were successfully and clearly achieved. The grade is 4 because they already provide us with part of what would be needed to audit proposals, but not the entire analysis (the bridge with the Cardano community was missing).

The proposal clearly defined 3 KPIs to track the project progress, that is Percentage of funded proposals evaluated by using P.I.E framework, the number of P.I.E reports, and video uploaded summarizing final P.I.E Reports. The proposal also provides clear deliverables as indicators of success each on a specific timeframe, after 12 months and 15 months, each deliverable is also measurable.

Yes the project is easy enough to audit, if one follows the proposers video project. As mentioned previously it might be better for the project to report via official IOG channels, such as Project Catalyst, in addition to their own channels. It shouldn't be difficult to have a team report to Catalyst in parallel to their own channels, to give high summary overviews of funded proposal progress. This project it self is a project, and in many requests an experiment. If the team finds success in the work, it should be shared with the community and applied across all challenge settings. Good luck.

The provided roadmap and milestones are plenty descriptive and are well paced to deliver 4 reports at a rate of one per quarter, with the first report focusing on onboarding half of the funded proposers from the F8: Gamers ON-Chained challenge setting. This should end up being significantly fewer by as much as half from the cohort in this team's other similar proposal. Though the intent isn't included here, the team should probably include in their roadmap and deliverables monthly contact with the onboarded proposers, certainly as a relevant KPI to be tracking but also as something to note on Monthly progress reports. It could also serve the needs of the collaborating proposers as well, so if it isn't already part of the reporting plan, I encourage the proposer to consider adding it. They indicate here the creation of dedicated communication channels for their onboarded projects, and if these channels are open to the public, it could aid in accountability and transparency for everyone, not to mention a source of support.