Summary

1. About this Report
2. Proposal-Info
3. ANALYSIS
1. ■Impact on the Ecosystem
2. ■Governance Compliance
3. ■Cost-Benefit Ratio
4. ■Transparency and Traceability
5. ■Track Record and Credibility
4. Evaluation
5. Voting

About this Report

vonFlandern has developed a methodology to analyze and evaluate OpenGov proposals as objectively, effectively, and transparently as possible. The goal is to create clear and structured decision-making foundations for our own voting—and to make these visible to the community.

Proposal-Info

Sponsorship Hybrid driver PORSCHE SUPER CUP - PORSCHE BENELUX

Track: 33 | Origin: MediumSpender | Amount: 295.000 USDT

Summary of the proposal

Core Issue

Polkadot lacks sufficient brand recognition and strategic partnerships in high-value sectors, particularly within elite motorsport and among influential investors and business leaders.

Ecosystem Impact

This limitation restricts Polkadot’s ability to engage key stakeholders, potentially hindering adoption and weakening its competitive position in markets like Andorra’s financial and governmental sectors.

Proposed Action

Frank Porté to compete in onsite and virtual Porsche championships with Polkadot branding, create tailored content, and host exclusive networking events. Iberlabs to support business development efforts.

Expected Outcomes

Achieve measurable brand exposure through 254M+ global viewers and 5M+ social media reach. Foster strategic relationships with investors and Andorra’s institutions, potentially leading to increased adoption and ecosystem growth.

■Question 1 of 19

Does the proposal measurably contribute to the long-term development, adoption, resilience, or relevance of Polkadot?

The proposal contributes measurably to Polkadot's long-term development, adoption, resilience, and relevance, though its impact is somewhat limited in scope. By utilizing elite motorsport sponsorship, it places Polkadot in a high-visibility context, increasing brand recognition among influential audiences such as investors and business leaders. This strategic positioning supports adoption and relevance by fostering networking opportunities that could lead to ecosystem growth. Furthermore, its emphasis on strengthening ties with Andorra’s institutions suggests a targeted approach to market expansion. However, the proposal’s influence on Polkadot’s technological development and resilience is less direct, as it focuses primarily on marketing and partnerships rather than enhancing the network’s core infrastructure or security.

Justification

The proposal excels in enhancing Polkadot’s visibility and forging strategic connections, both of which are vital for sustained adoption and relevance within the blockchain ecosystem. Its integration with existing collaborations in Andorra provides a focused strategy for growth in a specific region. Nevertheless, its contribution to resilience and technological advancement hinges on the indirect assumption that greater visibility and partnerships will bolster the network’s foundation, which is not explicitly demonstrated in the proposal’s framework.

Score: 7/10

■Question 2 of 19

What sustainable added value does the proposal bring to the Polkadot ecosystem in the long term, beyond the immediate project duration?

The proposal delivers sustainable added value to the Polkadot ecosystem by enhancing long-term brand recognition and forging strategic partnerships that extend beyond the immediate project duration. By leveraging elite motorsport sponsorship, it ensures ongoing visibility among high-value audiences, fostering sustained adoption and maintaining Polkadot’s relevance in competitive markets. Its focus on networking with influential stakeholders and institutions, particularly in Andorra, lays the groundwork for enduring business relationships and potential market expansion. Furthermore, integrating virtual racing aligns with Polkadot’s tech-forward identity, extending its presence into digital realms and appealing to future-oriented communities. While the proposal excels in marketing and visibility, its impact on the network’s core infrastructure or resilience remains indirect, relying on the premise that heightened recognition and partnerships will drive ecosystem growth over time.

Justification

The proposal’s strategic use of motorsport sponsorship and regional engagement in Andorra positions Polkadot for lasting brand equity and collaborative opportunities. This targeted approach strengthens its market presence and fosters relationships that can outlive the project’s initial timeline. However, it does not directly enhance the network’s technological foundation or resilience, focusing instead on external perception and connections, which may take time to translate into concrete ecosystem benefits.

Score: 8/10

■Question 3 of 19

Is an existing structural weakness addressed?

The proposal does not directly address an existing structural weakness within the Polkadot ecosystem. Its main focus lies in enhancing brand visibility and fostering strategic partnerships through elite motorsport sponsorship and regional engagement in Andorra. These efforts aim to increase recognition and create networking opportunities, which may indirectly support ecosystem growth. However, they do not target core infrastructural challenges such as scalability, security, or governance. Instead of proposing technical improvements to strengthen the network’s foundation, the proposal prioritizes marketing and external collaboration. As a result, its impact on addressing structural weaknesses is limited to tangential benefits rather than direct solutions, meaning it only partially fulfills this aspect.

Justification

The proposal leverages sponsorship and partnerships to boost Polkadot’s market presence and encourage collaboration, potentially aiding adoption and relevance. While these outcomes could indirectly alleviate some ecosystem pressures, they do not provide concrete solutions to critical structural issues like network performance or resilience. The emphasis remains on external perception rather than internal fortification, making its contribution to strengthening the network’s infrastructure indirect and secondary.

Score: 5/10

■Question 4 of 19

Does the proposal promote interoperability, user retention, or parachain development?

The proposal does not directly promote interoperability, user retention, or parachain development within the Polkadot ecosystem. Instead, it focuses primarily on enhancing brand visibility and fostering strategic partnerships through elite motorsport sponsorship and regional engagement in Andorra. These efforts aim to increase recognition and create networking opportunities, which could indirectly attract new users or partners to the ecosystem. However, it lacks specific initiatives or technical improvements targeting interoperability between chains, retention of existing users, or the development of new parachains. While marketing and external collaboration are valuable for broader ecosystem growth, their impact on these core aspects remains limited to potential secondary effects rather than direct contributions.

Justification

The proposal emphasizes sponsorship and partnerships to elevate Polkadot’s market presence and encourage collaboration, which may enhance adoption and relevance over time. Although these outcomes could indirectly support user retention by maintaining ecosystem interest or draw in new projects that might contribute to parachain development, they do not include concrete measures explicitly designed to improve interoperability, retain users, or advance parachain creation. The focus remains on external perception and networking, making its influence on these specific areas indirect and not a primary objective.

Score: 5/10

■Result category 1

Total score: 25/40 | Average: 6.25/10 (63%)

■Question 5 of 19

Does the proposal clearly fall within the scope of the chosen origin (Treasury, Tipper, Spender)?

The proposal clearly falls within the scope of the Medium Spender origin under Polkadot OpenGov’s Treasury tracks. It requests $295,000 USD, which, at an assumed DOT price of $6, equates to approximately 49,167 DOT—well within the Medium Spender track’s limit of 100,000 DOT. This track is designed for significant funding requests that benefit the Polkadot ecosystem, such as marketing initiatives. The proposal’s focus on sponsoring Porsche Supercup and Porsche Benelux E-Sports aims to enhance Polkadot’s visibility, leverage networking opportunities, and strengthen institutional ties in Andorra, aligning with the Treasury’s goals. However, it does not explicitly state the chosen origin, which could cause confusion. Additionally, while a budget is provided, a more detailed breakdown of fund allocation would improve clarity. Despite these minor shortcomings, the proposal’s objectives and amount fit the Medium Spender scope.

Justification

The requested $295,000 USD translates to a DOT amount within the Medium Spender track’s threshold, and its marketing and ecosystem-growth objectives match the track’s purpose. The inclusion of milestones and support from Iberlabs shows a structured approach, enhancing compliance. However, the absence of an explicitly stated origin and a granular budget slightly reduces its transparency, though not enough to misalign it from the chosen track.

Score: 8/10

■Question 6 of 19

Are there previous proposals with comparable content, and if so, what were their outcomes?

Yes, there are previous proposals with comparable content to the sponsorship of Frank Porté in the Porsche Supercup and Porsche Benelux E-Sports. For instance, the Spanish Content and Event Production Bounty V2 focused on content creation and events to boost Polkadot’s visibility, similar to the current proposal’s aim of enhancing brand recognition through racing events. Its outcome was mixed, with community concerns about fund utilization and insufficient ROI analysis. Similarly, the EasyA x Polkadot proposal, involving hackathons and educational initiatives, sought to increase engagement and visibility. While part of a successful 2024 campaign, it faced debate over its marketing focus versus developer acquisition goals. The Polkadot Decoded conference, a recurring event, has consistently succeeded in promoting the ecosystem, though it differs as an internally organized effort. These examples show a pattern of funding visibility-driven initiatives with varying success.

Justification

The proposal fits within Polkadot’s governance framework, specifically the Medium Spender track, which accommodates requests between 10,000 and 100,000 DOT, aligning with the $295,000 (approximately 49,167 DOT) requested. Past proposals like the Spanish Content and Event Production Bounty V2 and EasyA x Polkadot initiative provide relevant context, targeting visibility and engagement, much like the current sponsorship. Their mixed outcomes—success tempered by scrutiny over ROI and strategy—suggest this proposal is appropriately contextualized within the Treasury’s history of funding similar efforts. However, the lack of explicit reference to these precedents and detailed success metrics slightly weakens its positioning, though it remains consistent with governance norms.

Score: 8/10

■Question 7 of 19

Is the governance system being used meaningfully or burdened?

The governance system is being used meaningfully by the proposal rather than being burdened. The proposal requests approximately 49,167 DOT, calculated from a $295,000 USD budget at a $6 DOT price, which fits comfortably within the Medium Spender track’s range of 10,000 to 100,000 DOT. This track is intended for significant ecosystem-enhancing initiatives like marketing and community engagement, and the proposal’s focus on sponsorship for visibility and networking aligns well with these objectives. It includes a structured plan with milestones and a timeline, supported by Iberlabs, demonstrating a responsible approach to leveraging the Treasury. While it lacks an explicitly stated origin and a detailed budget breakdown, these shortcomings do not significantly hinder the governance process, as the funding amount clearly suits the Medium Spender track. Compared to similar past proposals, it follows established patterns, indicating the system is equipped to handle such requests efficiently.

Justification

The Medium Spender track, as defined in Polkadot’s OpenGov origins, supports initiatives requiring substantial funding for ecosystem growth, which this proposal meets by targeting Polkadot’s visibility and partnerships. Its structured approach respects governance objectives, while minor transparency gaps, such as the unstated origin, do not impose an undue burden, given the context makes the track evident. Historical precedents of funded marketing proposals further confirm the governance system’s capacity to evaluate this request without strain.

Score: 8/10

■Result category 2

Total score: 24/30 | Average: 8.00/10 (80%)

■Question 8 of 19

Is the requested amount proportionate to the potential or demonstrated benefit?

The requested amount of $295,000 USD, equivalent to approximately 49,167 DOT at $6 per DOT, does not appear fully proportionate to the potential or demonstrated benefit for the Polkadot ecosystem. While the proposal highlights significant visibility through elite motorsport sponsorship and exclusive networking opportunities, reaching an audience of 254 million viewers and 5 million social media users, it fails to provide concrete metrics or evidence to substantiate the expected impact on Polkadot’s adoption or growth. The benefit remains speculative without clear conversion estimates or examples of similar sponsorships driving blockchain engagement. Furthermore, the focus on Andorra, though strategic regionally, may limit broader ecosystem reach. Compared to other Treasury-funded initiatives like developer grants, this marketing approach lacks evident cost-effectiveness, relying heavily on indirect gains such as brand recognition.

Justification

The proposal includes a structured plan with milestones and support from Iberlabs, lending some credibility. However, it lacks a detailed allocation breakdown for the $295,000, hindering assessment of resource efficiency. While the Medium Spender track allows such funding, the absence of specific return-on-investment projections or benchmarks from comparable initiatives weakens its case. The potential for strategic partnerships in Andorra is promising, but without quantifiable targets, the cost-benefit ratio remains unclear.

Score: 6/10

■Question 9 of 19

Is the budget framework reasonable compared to similar proposals?

The budget framework of $295,000 USD, roughly 49,167 DOT at $6 per DOT, appears somewhat reasonable when compared to similar Polkadot Treasury proposals, though it lacks the detail needed for a thorough assessment. For instance, the Spanish Content and Event Production Bounty V2 requested 21,000 DOT, equivalent to $126,000 USD, for content and events, while the EasyA x Polkadot proposal sought 23,000 DOT, or about $138,000 USD, for hackathons and education. Both provided clearer breakdowns or metrics, such as cost-per-participant, whereas this proposal offers no specific allocation or ROI projections. While the amount fits within the Medium Spender track, its cost-effectiveness is harder to judge without granular financial planning or benchmarks from comparable motorsport sponsorships, making it less convincing than peers despite its strategic focus.

Justification

The proposal’s credibility is bolstered by a structured plan and Iberlabs’ support, yet it falls short on transparency compared to initiatives like EasyA’s, which offered measurable outcomes. The elite motorsport focus and Andorra networking are promising, but without quantifiable targets or evidence of blockchain engagement from similar sponsorships, the budget’s reasonableness remains uncertain. Relative to other Treasury marketing efforts, the cost seems elevated without stronger substantiation.

Score: 6/10

■Question 10 of 19

What specific added value does the Treasury or network gain in return for this expenditure?

The Treasury gains potential brand visibility and networking opportunities through a $295,000 sponsorship of a driver in Porsche Supercup and Porsche Benelux E-Sports. This includes Polkadot’s branding on the car, driver’s suit, and social media, reaching an estimated 254 million viewers and 5 million social media users. Networking benefits arise from exclusive events at Formula 1 weekends and regional races, offering access to investors and business leaders, particularly in Andorra. However, the proposal does not specify how this visibility converts into tangible network growth, such as increased user adoption or ecosystem development. The cost-benefit ratio remains unclear due to the lack of measurable outcomes, making the expenditure’s impact on Polkadot’s broader goals uncertain compared to direct investments like developer grants.

Justification

The proposal outlines visibility and networking as key benefits, supported by Iberlabs’ involvement, which adds credibility. Yet, it lacks a detailed budget breakdown and specific metrics to evaluate success, such as engagement rates or partnership conversions. The focus on Andorra may limit global network impact, and past similar initiatives have shown mixed results regarding return on investment. While the Medium Spender track accommodates the cost, the absence of evidence linking sponsorships to blockchain growth weakens the efficiency case.

Score: 6/10

■Question 11 of 19

Were cheaper alternatives considered?

The proposal does not explicitly consider cheaper alternatives for achieving similar visibility and networking outcomes. It centers on a $295,000 sponsorship of a driver in Porsche Supercup and Porsche Benelux E-Sports, emphasizing brand exposure and exclusive networking opportunities in Andorra. While it claims cost-effectiveness compared to traditional marketing, it lacks any discussion of less costly options, such as sponsoring smaller motorsport events, launching digital marketing campaigns, or supporting community-driven initiatives. These alternatives could potentially deliver comparable benefits at a reduced cost. Without exploring such options, the proposal misses an opportunity to demonstrate how resources could be used more efficiently relative to the intended impact, leaving uncertainty about whether the $295,000 investment is the most economical choice.

Justification

The proposal’s focus on elite motorsport sponsorship and its comparison to traditional marketing suggest an intent to justify the expense, but it stops short of analyzing cheaper alternatives within or outside the motorsport domain. This omission limits transparency on whether the chosen approach optimizes the cost-benefit ratio. While the sponsorship aligns with strategic goals like networking and visibility, the absence of evidence showing why this is the most resource-efficient option weakens its case. A thorough cost-benefit evaluation would require consideration of lower-cost alternatives, which the proposal does not provide.

Score: 5/10

■Result category 3

Total score: 23/40 | Average: 5.75/10 (57%)

■Question 12 of 19

Is it clearly communicated how and for what purposes funds will be used—including KPIs, milestones, metrics?

The proposal does not fully clarify how the $295,000 will be utilized or for what specific purposes, as it lacks a detailed allocation of funds across activities like sponsorship fees, content creation, or networking events. While it presents a structured plan tied to a racing calendar and mentions Iberlabs’ support, it falls short on defining key performance indicators (KPIs), milestones, and metrics. These omissions hinder stakeholders’ ability to track progress or evaluate outcomes effectively. Although potential benefits such as brand visibility and networking opportunities are noted, no measurable success criteria are provided, reducing transparency and traceability. This makes evidence-based evaluation challenging, as the proposal offers no concrete framework for assessing its impact.

Justification

The proposal outlines a general strategy aligned with Polkadot’s goals and references racing events as milestones, but it does not connect these to quantifiable targets like audience reach or engagement rates. The absence of a detailed budget breakdown and performance metrics limits the ability to monitor fund usage or measure success. Iberlabs’ involvement suggests some credibility, but without defined reporting mechanisms or KPIs, stakeholders cannot assess whether objectives are met, which is essential for Treasury-funded projects requiring accountability.

Score: 5/10

■Question 13 of 19

Are budgets, timelines, and work packages clearly specified?

The proposal does not clearly specify budgets, timelines, or work packages in a detailed and comprehensive manner. It requests a total funding amount of $295,000 USD and provides a general timeline aligned with the racing calendar from May 2025 to October 2025. However, it lacks a granular breakdown of the budget, failing to specify allocations for key components such as sponsorship costs, content creation, or networking events. Similarly, while the racing season offers a broad schedule, the proposal does not include intermediate milestones or deliverables to track progress effectively. The absence of defined work packages further obscures how activities will be organized and executed. This lack of specificity hinders transparency and traceability, making it challenging for stakeholders to monitor fund usage or evaluate the proposal’s outcomes with evidence-based precision.

Justification

The proposal outlines a total funding request and ties its timeline to the racing season, but it falls short of providing a detailed financial plan or clear distribution of resources across its components. Without explicit milestones or structured work packages, assessing progress or ensuring alignment with objectives becomes difficult. The involvement of Iberlabs is noted, but no reporting mechanisms or performance indicators are defined to support accountability. This incomplete detailing of budgets, timelines, and work packages limits the ability to track execution or verify success, reducing the proposal’s transparency and traceability.

Score: 5/10

■Question 14 of 19

Are there success criteria for later evaluation?

The proposal does not include clear success criteria for later evaluation. While it highlights objectives such as increasing brand visibility and building strategic partnerships through motorsport sponsorship, it lacks specific, measurable indicators to assess whether these goals are met. There are no defined benchmarks, such as target audience reach, engagement rates, or partnership conversion metrics, to evaluate its effectiveness. This omission makes it challenging for stakeholders to measure the proposal’s impact or determine if the $295,000 investment provides value to the Polkadot ecosystem. Without a structured evaluation framework, the proposal fails to enable evidence-based tracking, reducing transparency and accountability, which are vital for Treasury-funded projects.

Justification

The proposal outlines potential benefits like brand exposure and networking but does not tie these to quantifiable targets or a reporting plan. The racing calendar offers a timeline but not performance metrics. Although Iberlabs’ involvement is mentioned, no explicit key performance indicators or success criteria are provided, limiting the ability to assess outcomes systematically. This gap undermines traceability and transparency, as stakeholders cannot objectively verify the proposal’s success.

Score: 5/10

■Question 15 of 19

Is documentation or reporting planned?

The proposal does not explicitly outline a plan for documentation or reporting. While it references a structured approach supported by Iberlabs and aligns activities with the racing calendar, it fails to provide a clear framework for tracking progress or evaluating outcomes. This omission hinders stakeholders' ability to assess the proposal's impact or ensure accountability, which is critical for a Treasury-funded project valued at $295,000. Without a defined reporting mechanism or success metrics, transparency and traceability are compromised, making it challenging to verify whether the investment delivers value to the Polkadot ecosystem. Consequently, evidence-based tracking and evaluation are not adequately enabled.

Justification

The proposal emphasizes sponsorship and networking opportunities but lacks detail on how activities will be documented or their effectiveness reported. Although the racing calendar offers a timeline, it does not include specific milestones or performance indicators for monitoring progress. Iberlabs' role is mentioned, but no concrete reporting structure or evaluation process is specified. This absence of documentation and reporting plans weakens transparency and traceability, both of which are essential for stakeholders to conduct evidence-based assessments of the proposal's success.

Score: 4/10

■Result category 4

Total score: 19/40 | Average: 4.75/10 (48%)

■Question 16 of 19

Have the proposers or involved organizations made verifiable, traceable contributions to the ecosystem?

The proposers and involved organizations have not demonstrated verifiable or traceable contributions to the Polkadot ecosystem based on the information provided in the proposal. The primary proposer, Frank Porté, is not accompanied by any documented history of prior work or engagement within the ecosystem, leaving his experience and credibility unestablished. Similarly, Iberlabs, an entity mentioned for business development support, lacks detailed evidence of past contributions or a proven track record specific to Polkadot. The proposal itself does not reference completed projects, community involvement, or external documentation that could validate the proposers’ capabilities. This gap in substantiating their involvement raises doubts about their ability to successfully implement the proposed objectives.

Justification

The proposal identifies Frank Porté as the lead proposer but offers no insight into his previous contributions to Polkadot, such as projects, code, or community efforts. Iberlabs’ role is described vaguely, with no concrete examples of its achievements or relevance to the ecosystem provided. Without references to tangible outputs or ecosystem engagement, it is difficult to assess the proposers’ credibility or capacity to deliver. The absence of a demonstrated history undermines confidence in their ability to execute the plan effectively, despite its structured outline.

Score: 4/10

■Question 17 of 19

What projects have been successfully implemented so far?

Based on available information, there are no specific projects within the Polkadot ecosystem that can be identified as successfully implemented by Frank Porté or Iberlabs. The Polkadot ecosystem includes notable projects such as OriginTrail and Acala, but none of these are linked to Frank Porté or Iberlabs in the provided data. The proposal indicates that Iberlabs will contribute to business development efforts, suggesting some intended involvement. However, without documented evidence of past successful projects or contributions, it is not possible to confirm their track record. Consequently, the credibility and capability of Frank Porté and Iberlabs to implement the proposal remain unproven, as no concrete examples of prior achievements in this context are available.

Justification

The assessment relies on the absence of references to Frank Porté or Iberlabs in connection with established Polkadot projects. The proposal mentions a role for Iberlabs in business development, but it does not provide details of previous accomplishments or completed initiatives within the ecosystem. This lack of verifiable history limits the ability to evaluate their experience or success, making it difficult to affirm their capacity to deliver on the proposed objectives effectively.

Score: 3/10

■Question 18 of 19

Are there publicly accessible references (e.g., code repositories, publications) or community feedback supporting the proposers’ credibility?

There are no publicly accessible references, such as code repositories or publications, or community feedback supporting the credibility of Frank Porté or Iberlabs in the Polkadot ecosystem. The proposal mentions Frank Porté as a hybrid driver in Porsche Supercup and Porsche Benelux E-Sports and Iberlabs as a business development supporter, but it lacks evidence of their prior work or contributions within Polkadot. A thorough review of relevant web sources, including ecosystem reports, blog posts, and developer resources, reveals no mentions of their involvement or achievements. This absence of documented history raises doubts about their capability to effectively implement the proposed objectives in the Polkadot ecosystem.

Justification

The proposal identifies Frank Porté as the lead proposer but provides no details about his experience or contributions to Polkadot or blockchain technology. Similarly, Iberlabs is noted for supporting business development, yet no specific examples of their past work in the ecosystem are given. An extensive analysis of web results, including Polkadot ecosystem insights, project listings, and community updates, shows no references to either Frank Porté or Iberlabs. Without verifiable evidence of their track record or recognition within the Polkadot community, their credibility and ability to deliver on the proposal remain unsubstantiated.

Score: 3/10

■Question 19 of 19

Is the team capable of delivering the promised outcomes?

The team behind the Polkadot sponsorship proposal has not sufficiently demonstrated their capability to deliver the promised outcomes. Frank Porté, identified as a hybrid driver in Porsche Supercup and Porsche Benelux E-Sports, brings expertise in racing, but this experience does not directly correlate with the skills required to enhance blockchain visibility or forge strategic partnerships within the Polkadot ecosystem. Iberlabs, noted for supporting business development, lacks any detailed description of past successes or relevant contributions that would affirm their ability to execute the proposal’s objectives. The proposal itself outlines goals such as brand exposure and networking opportunities in motorsport and Andorra, yet it provides no concrete evidence of the team’s prior achievements in managing sponsorships, leveraging marketing campaigns, or establishing high-value connections. While a racing calendar and content ideas suggest some planning, the absence of a detailed strategy or measurable success criteria undermines confidence in their ability to translate these efforts into tangible benefits for Polkadot.

Justification

The evaluation hinges on the absence of verifiable evidence regarding Frank Porté’s or Iberlabs’ track record within the Polkadot ecosystem or similar blockchain initiatives. The proposal and accompanying web results offer no insight into their past contributions, leaving their credibility unestablished. Frank Porté’s racing background, while notable, does not bridge the gap to blockchain-related outcomes, and Iberlabs’ vague role fails to inspire confidence without specifics. The proposal’s structure indicates effort, but its lack of depth—particularly for a $295,000 request—combined with no proven history in delivering comparable results, suggests limited capability. This justifies a lower score, reflecting weak fulfillment of the credibility and capability aspect.

Score: 3/10

■Result category 5

Total score: 13/40 | Average: 3.25/10 (33%)