10 points for each of the items I, II, III, IV and V. Total is out of 7 points (total / 50 * 7)

MedicAid:
I. Design diagram and design quality 10
	See comments in the next item.
II. Design reasoning and discussions 7
	The description on section 3.2.1 is suggesting operations on
	the control that should have been the job of the entity in the
	first place, isn't it? 
	In the modified, it is not clear what role the control now plays
	vs. the entity. 
	Section 3.2.2 is suggesting that the control class actually function
	as Entity. Not sure why that would be the case. 
	It appears that wrong design decisions are being made so as to refine
	the design?! That is not iterative development.
III. Development approaches 8
	Not enough coverage of this, except a high level mentioning.
IV. Details on problems faced 5
	Not enough coverage of this. 
V. Report overall 10

Minor point: Strange that the table of contents was actually manually typed and not auto-generated!

Total: 40 (5.6)

Student Testing System:
I. Design diagram and design quality 8
	It is not clear where the response from a student is stored or
how it is modeled?
II. Design reasoning and discussions 10
	This section has gotten a reasonable coverage, I think.
III. Development approaches 8
	Lacks more details on the task allocation and team organization.
IV. Details on problems faced 10
V. Report overall 10

Excellent report! Very well written. Good job.
And you were at least 30 hours ahead of schedule
in delivering your report. Impressed.

Seems like you are a little low on the number of
test cases though. I would have expected to see
a lot more. May be I am missing some thing.

Total: 46 (6.44)

SyndiSnag:
I. Design diagram and design quality 10
II. Design reasoning and discussions 7
	You say "We came up with the user stories in the following components:
	1.	GUI controls 2.	Business logic" What does that mean?
	Do you mean that user stories were divided into tasks that were
	implemented in these component tiers?
	Usability concerns are valid and efforts to address those look good.
	The report is written with "I" instead of "we". Who is I, the person
	making the decision for that particular problem or the person writing
	the report? 
	The discussion on context sensitive menu identifies the problem. That is
	good. However, looks like efforts are not being made to solve it. It 
	appears more like, "so what"? Are there ways to solve the problem? 
III. Development approaches 7
	I see the argument that test first coding was not effective for the UI
	development. However, was it used for the other tiers at all? The report
	appears to be the narration of one team member who wrote the report (and
	was likely involved with the UI tier) and not that of the team.
	A later session talks about NUnit, but an earlier section contradicts 
	this.  Not enough information about how this was used effectively.
IV. Details on problems faced 5
	Apart from design decisions, no mention of these can be found.
V. Report overall 10
	Remember to list the names of team members in your report.
	Your report was submitted barely in time and your zip file submission 
	was 8 minutes late (and was not accepted - the first submission is what 
	is used for grading).
	The follow up report was not adequate and was not copied to the
	rest of the team in the email. Team members complained that they
	did not receive the follow up report and had to ask several times
	for it to get a copy.
Total: 39 (5.46)

Bug-base:
I. Design diagram and design quality 10
	Class diagram in section 8.2.2 leads me to
	believe that those classes were identified in
	iteration 0 - seems like an awfully lot of 
	classes to identify in one iteration. May be I am
	not reading this right.
	What is operator_1?
II. Design reasoning and discussions 7
	Reasoning as to why certain decisions were made say
	for selecting tools for testing, etc. is hard to find.
	(OK, found it finally in a later section).
	Reasoning for going to a desktop based approach does
	not state any cons though. It increases the installation
	cost which may have been eliminated by a web based 
	system though! Redundant information describing XP is
	present. Lacks the "why"s of the design.
III. Development approaches 7
	Report contains more description of what the practices and
	tools are rather than how they were effectively used for your
	specific project. 
	The details of each iteration are fairly well documented.
IV. Details on problems faced 10
	Expected to see details of some that are mentioned above as missing.
V. Report overall 10

Total: 44 (6.16)

Wheels.com:
I. Design diagram and design quality 10
	Good steps taken towards the design and adequate description of it as well.
II. Design reasoning and discussions 7
	I like the honest assessment of lack of test cases. However, the reasoning
	is not very convincing though. You should be developing your application in
	layers or tiers. Why can' test cases be developed before coding the middle
	tier and the lower tiers. Then the UI tier can be written independently and
	easily as well. The section on code review does not convey what you are
	really doing. Are you saying that the person who write the code is the
	one who actually reviews it as well? Red flag on integration. The code must
	be in source code control at the first hour of development. Not a reasonable
	explanation.
	Good realization that validation has to be moved from the UI.
	The class diagram shows the Handlers depending on the GUI classes. Has this
	been implemented. I am curious as to how this works. If you are using the
	Handlers to dictate which page gets displayed next, I may go with it.
	Otherwise, I am not sure where this is going to go.
III. Development approaches 8
	Need to get up to speed on applying some good practices and tools.
IV. Details on problems faced 7
	The issues in the design have been addressed fairly effectively. However,
	other problems and especially efforts to address them are were not
	effectively taken and/or stated.
V. Report overall 10
	You need to turn in one cohesive document and not a hodgepodge of pdf and doc files.

Total: 42 (5.88)