A problem and a solution to the problem has been identified but they are presented in a vague manner ("to use Cardano as a source of true for storing operational information that can be verified" - it is difficult to understand the meaning of this statement. The proposal doesn't align well with the Challenge brief. It should provide relevant info about the long-term vision, strategy and roadmap as well as short-term deliverables attainable in the next 6-9 months. It is unclear what is the real world use case for this proposal.

Instead of having a big goal to pursue and a high mountain to climb, the concept for this proposal is a pretty simple but decent and totally reachable one. The team clearly knows where their limits are and how they should use their ability to contribute to the community. However, what is shown in this part of the proposal is only the bare basics, the information given is very lacking, both in terms of the amount of information given and in view of how the team members are trying to express themselves via the writing of the proposal. They should give out much more detail in each of the parts: what the situation that leads to their decision to initiate the project, what their project is about, how their project will relate to the future of the community in general and the challenge in particular, what obstacles they are facing and how they are going to tackle it. Otherwise, the proposal cannot persuade.

This proposal is for the integration of the Cotalker backend records on the Cardano blockchain. This is a B2B and will drive all the proper objectives for this challenge. The proposer states that this solution will be implemented for all current customers of Cotalker (I could not find who is that.) Therefore I strongly agree that this proposal effectively addresses the challenge.

We realize that the purpose of the proposal is to make an integration between an asset and operations management platform and Cardano, to facilitate the storage of information. This main objective of the project even fits the premises of the challenge in which it finds itself, since it can increase Cardano's scope by facilitating operations involving businesses. However, as described in the proposal we do not have more in-depth information that convinces why this implementation will cost the large budget of $100,000. For amounts in this range, we expect a greater level of detail about the possible positive impacts when implementing the idea, more detailed motivations that justify the use of Cardano technologies and in this case it would even be possible to demonstrate an example that shows a more beneficial tangible form of the planned integration.

No KPI/metrics are defined the measure the success of the implementation. The proposal lacks in providing relevant info about what is to be done and how and most important what is the problem that needs a feasible solution to solve it. Being poorly written it can't be assessed at this time.

The auditability section is of two components “success integration and pilot with at least two well known companies” the same thing repeats for success. The question is how an auditor to decide if and when and how much funds to send to the proposer’s wallet and how to check the progress of the project? The answer is there is no way. Therefore I strongly disagree that this proposal provides me with sufficient information to assess the progress in attaining its stated goals. Dear proposers, I really think that your idea is great and I want to support it, but the proposal you have made does not allow me to do so. Please next time, spend a little more time and explain your proposal in detail for the voter to understand and support. Thank you.

The answers for the questions in the part are way too short; and they are completely the same. The team ought to give out details about what methods and/or platforms they are using and to track down the progress of the project and specify more of their current answers. Overall, this is not a good proposal, and the team needs to add much more to their answers to improve upon the writing.

The stated ways to follow the project's evolution are also not very well detailed. As one of these ways, the very success of the integration was indicated. But this indication by itself only refers to the final result and does not provide further information throughout the process. For this, it would be interesting to define, for example, sprints with a constant duration (like weekly) and the publication of the results being achieved in something like a public board where the community could better observe the goals being achieved. Perhaps the lack of this information would be alleviated by more detailed ideas about the perception of success, but we noticed that in this topic the same things were indicated as before.

Thus, it seems cool that the proposal seeks to answer some of the questions raised so that the general idea around the project is more complete.