1. Project number and Title
    #16 - Grounding via Embedded Cues and Affordances Utilizing an Android Phone as a Low-Cost
Robotics Platform
2. Should this project be considered for the Best Project award? (yes/no)
no
3. Should this project be considered for the top 3 project awards? (yes/no)
no
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
of the project report? (1-10)
8
5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? (1-10)
8
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall research
contribution of the project idea, methodology and/or results?  (1-10)
7

Then write approximately 2 pages of helpful feedback to the project's
author(s). The following questions should help you organize your
feedback:

* Overall, is the project report clear, concise, and well-organized?
The beginning of the report (mostly proposal discussion for the project) could have been a little clearer about the end goal (what determines success).

* How does the project idea and methodology fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics?
Yeah, it looks at the affordance issue with how a robot goes about interacting with objects.  It also presents a couple approaches for doing object and environment learning.  

* Describe what you like BEST about the project?
It is an interesting overview of the upcoming technology available that brings near field sensors into robotics.  
It proposes an approach to using less specialized technology to utilize existing concepts but in the field of developmental robotics.  The way the barcodes and RFID are used for object identification.

* Describe what you like LEAST about the project?
NA

* Do the methods, results and contributions of the final project correspond to what was presented in the initial project proposal?
All suggests from the proposal review seem to be met related to getting a good defined data-set.  However there are some areas that get a little thin when discussing. (But a good attempt was made and discussion was included with details as to why.  Additional content not proposed in the proposal was also added and did bring some new concepts to the report of how to future example the original idea.)  

* Are there any major details left out with regards to the methods, algorithms, or experimental design described in the report?
The methods for acquiring the data are clear, but the algorithms used to recall and dynamically interpret data could be added.  Examples of accuracy of item identification and the factors that feed into causing that error.

* Do the experimental results reported in the paper demonstrate success?
Partially.  The speech to text command processing seems to have had issues with some of the phrases use to drive different command test cases.

* Do you have any suggestions for improvement and future work?
This paper could possibly have additional material tying in how the data the robot gathers is understood, organized, and processed.  The current discussion is purely approaches to gathering, storing and recalling the information.  The data is more static and there doesn't seem to be relationships between items where the robot could make decisions outside the original preprogrammed learning and recalling process.

Adding an experiment where embodiment comes into play with the robot controlling more aspects of the decisions and having its body influence the outcomes.  Maybe adding more sensors to make the movement between objects more autonomous.

I feel your pain with the AppInventor stuff.  I've previously tried to use that for a project and it was quite painful.  Hopefully you get a chance to port everything forward to java and try out some of the new future stuff you mention.  
Good project though, looks like it was fun to put together!

* How close is the final project report to being publishable as a conference or journal paper (consider the research papers that were part of the course reading)? What would it take to get there?
It's about half way to being a publishable report.  I'd suggest some of the items I mentioned in the future work, specifically tying it to more result data and embodiment.  I'd also suggest reformatting the paper into an IEEE submission format (citing material when discussed, etc).