1. #4 Learned Shape Affordances through Simple Tool Use
2. Should this project be considered for the Best Project award? No
3. Should this project be considered for the top 3 project awards? No
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity of the project report? 9
5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? 10
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall research contribution of the project idea, methodology and/or results?  8

* Overall, is the project report clear, concise, and well-organized?

This report was quite clear, concise, and well-organized. I found the flow to be quite nice aside from the placement of the team member descriptions. I would like to have seen those at the beginning of the paper. 
	
* How does the project idea and methodology fit within the framework of Developmental Robotics?

This project fits very well inside the framework of Developmental Robotics. The project took an already well established topic in the field and turned it around. Instead of looking at the affordances that a tool yields, the authors looked at the affordances yielded by an object being manipulated by a tool. This was an interesting twist on Alex's work.

* Describe what you like BEST about the project?

I really liked how the project was essentially the inverse of Alex's dissertation work. I thought that was an ingenious and very useful topic. Not only must a robot know how it can manipulate an object, it must know how the object can be manipulated.

* Describe what you like LEAST about the project?

I really disliked the use of a simulation for the research in this project. The use of a simulation lends itself to non-real results, as the authors found in their first two attempts at the experiment. I don't think that it seems possible to eliminate all the possible error that a simulation could create. It is hard for me as reader to take the results of the simulation test as absolute truth.

* Do the methods, results and contributions of the final project correspond to what was presented in the initial project proposal?

The project report does an excellent job of meshing with the proposal. All the same topics were covered, and the team did a great job of showing where they fell short of the proposal and why they did so.

* Are there any major details left out with regards to the methods, algorithms, or experimental design described in the report?

I didn't really understand exactly how the authors' method worked. It was hard for me to follow exactly what steps were being taken to determine how to manipulate the puck to get it to the target position. 

* Do the experimental results reported in the paper demonstrate success?

The results shown in this paper do show success, though it is quite limited. The authors were able to move the puck to the correct position, but they were unable to correctly orient it. They explain that this could have been due to an error in the simulation, which makes me even more uncomfortable with the simulation. I wouldn't really consider this experiment successful until the authors can show their method works on a real robot.

* Do you have any suggestions for improvement and future work?

My big suggestion is that the authors get into the lab and run their method on the robot to see if their findings hold true. Using a real robot will make the experiment more believable and easier to relate to. This should be the biggest priority for the authors.

* 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?

I think the experiment needs to be conducted on an actual robot before being published. While the simulation is a good proof of concept, I am really uncomfortable with drawing conclusions from it. I would also move the team member descriptions to the beginning of the paper. Other than that, the paper seemed very well written and easily publishable.