Bear in mind that these pointers are to the first draft of part 2 documents turned in by these teams. In many cases, the shortcomings were fixed in subsequent versions.
Good balance between details of raw data and synthesized presentation. Should have modified the questionnaire.
Good critiquing of the evaluation plan.
Just provided dumps of raw data and no further analysis/summary. Misunderstood how to do a cog. walk (multiple users instead of group activity).
Did not include enough of the data collected from evaluation, but gave a very good critique.