SIMPATICO´s objective is to improve the interaction of citizens and companies with the public administration by personalized e-services based on self-learning technologies and the involvement of people for their continuous improvement. The final objective of the project is to deliver the SIMPATICO platform, which will be built based on the requirements obtained from the three different cases of study (Sheffield, Trento and Galicia) in two phases or loops. The development of the platform as an open software system that can interoperate with public authorities’ legacy system will help researchers advance further in this field.  

It can be highlighted the following helpful information for researchers:

• In D1.5. there is a very good identification of ethical regulations and rights in this field.
• Personal data categories have been defined in D1.1.
• End-user recruitment has been properly treated in D1.5, section 5.1 and in T6.2.
• Indicators have been defined to check privacy compliance.
• State of the art is treated separately for each function/component (e.g. workflow adaptation, syntactic adaptation, etc), what allows a better understanding of each of the sections.
• In D3.1. it can be highlighted: 1) the definition of document object model techniques and of model-based user innovation approaches; 2) the use of a methodology (Volere) to analyze system requirements (better explained in D5.1); 3) usability testing based on the study of Nielsen in 2001, which can be used to measure the quality of websites and e-services and that will be used in SIMPATICO´s project.
• In D4.1., section 3.2., there is a very good comparative analysis of participative solutions where it can be highlighted Table 12 (section 3.2.2.4) where the different collaborative process modeling tools features are compared, and can be very helpful for the selection of the most appropriate techniques in future studies.
• State of the art about gamification techniques can be found in D5.1., information that can be used in future studies to persuade citizens to embrace socially beneficial collective actions and to effectively achieve human computation.

The quantification of the impacts has been properly done. In section 7.1.1. and Table 8 of D1.1. there have been defined the different criteria to assess quality, organized by categories and including key performance indicators, as well as the different tools used to measure them. Key performance indicators (KPIs) have also been defined: 1) in each case of study, indicating target values and actual values (D6.1. Table 15); and 2) in dissemination and communication activities (D7.2.). 

Risks have been properly identified for each pilot experiences indicating as well mitigation measures.

In order to improve the quality of the work, some issues should be improved in the deliverables:

1. Through the summary and the different public deliverables there is a wide use of acronyms. Most of these acronyms are not defined in the text (e.g. in the summary EC, APIs, NLP). Definition of the acronyms gives quality to the text and improves the understanding of the text by non-specialized professionals and citizens, which are one of the project stakeholders.
2. An advisory board is defined in D1.1, however, their names or professional profile has not been indicated or are not in the available information.
3. In D1.1 (WP1 Project management), Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) is defined in the glossary but it has not been included in the project management structure. However it has been defined an Internal Ethics Committee that does not appear later.
4. In D2.1, in workflow adaptation, Project Higgins reference is a linked to archived eclipse projects where Higgins project does not appear. This should be fixed.
5. In D3.1., section 2.2.1, the list of e-services for Trento case of study are in Italian, it should be written also in English for a better understanding.

The most significant results of SIMPATICO project include the approaches and methods followed to build the “auto-learning” system architecture and the development of the three main components of the system: citizen data vault, Citizenpedia and SIMPATICO adaptation Engine.

In general, dissemination and communication tools are very well defined and scheduled for each case of study in D6.3. tables 1, 2 and 3 specify the different measures followed in the four different phases of the development of the project (inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower). Moreover, they have been defined and quantified for each case of study. Dissemination and communication activities have been scheduled and already done activities are indicated in D7.2. However, there is a shortcoming, stakeholders defined in D1.1 are not the same as those identified in D7.2; dissemination and communication actions should be targeted to all the stakeholders and should be the same as those identified in D1.1.

Regarding to the website, available information is higher in English than in the other two languages (Spanish and Italian). For example, deliverables are only available when you access the webpage in the English version. Information availability should be the same in all the languages in order to improve access of English non-speakers and increase project dissemination.

Exploitation plan has not been included in the deliverables.

The different tasks planned to accomplish the objectives of the project are appropriate. However, some recommendations are:

1. Analysis of the state of the art about projects related with the field of research has not been included. Moreover, liaison with related projects has not been treated, but it has been indicated in the summary (T1.2., and WP7). It was only mentioned a project call mySociety about online democracy tools, project where one of the partners is member. Collaboration with other EU projects working on the same area of interest could help structuring a thematic community, a better dissemination of project results and of future researches in efficient communication with public authorities.
2. Exploitation of project results, as well as how will be Citizenpedia be sustained in the future is not assessed and should be included in future deliverables.
3. In D2.1 it is said that for the Galician case of study (section 2.2.6 Syntactic simplifier), they have switch form Galician to Spanish language due to lack of resources and lack of NPL personnel in the project for the development and evaluation of new rules. Since the development of the platform in Galician was one of the first objectives and some difficulties were found to use it in the project; in order to improve future studies, it could be good to develop a guideline indicating how to proceed or which are the difficulties that should be solved or studied in future studies.