# Proposal Peer-Feedback Survey

Link to Survey here: https://forms.gle/iLWDV6Lh753ZfNM47

This page shows exactly what the peer-feedback survey will ask, so you know what
to listen for during each presentation and what your classmates will be asked
about yours. The survey itself is administered as a Google Form; the notes below
about form setup are for the instructor's reference.

Copy-paste into Google Forms. One form for the whole quarter: students submit
**one response per presenting group**. Settings to enable: "Allow response
editing" (so they can submit in class and polish afterward), and do NOT enable
"Limit to 1 response" (they submit once per presenting group).

The point of this survey is to help the presenters, not to grade them. It does
two things: it shows presenters whether their message actually landed, and it
tells them whether classmates would really use what they're building. Push for
specifics — "it's useful" is not a helpful answer.

---

**Form title:** FINM 32900 — Proposal Presentation Peer Feedback

**Form description:**
Submit one response for each presenting group. Your written feedback is shared
with the presenters **anonymously** — your name is collected only for
attendance and participation credit and is never shown to the presenters. If
you check the "get in touch" box at the end, I will pass your name and email to
the group **separately**, so it is never linked to your feedback. Answer the
"in your own words" questions based only on what you understood from the talk —
don't look anything up. That's the whole point: it tells the presenters whether
their message came across.

---

## Section 1 — About this response

1. **Your name** (short answer, required)
2. **Which group are you giving feedback on?** (dropdown, required)
   - Fernando + Bangjie
   - Michael + David
   - Andrew + Chandler
   - Anthony + Stefano
   - Riley + Marija
   - Brian + Clara
   - Arnold + Cameron
   - Bobby + George
   - Ashish + Omar
   - Ahmad + Jeffrey
   - Iris + Zhicheng

## Section 2 — Did the message land? (the paper)

Answer both of these from memory, based only on what you heard in the talk.

3. **In your own words, what is the *core exercise* of the paper this group is
   replicating?** (paragraph, required)
   Helper: *Don't look anything up. This tells the presenters whether the core
   of their paper actually came across.*
4. **What is the *significance* of this paper — why does it matter, and who
   should care?** (paragraph, required)
   Helper: *Again, just from what you heard in the presentation.*

## Section 3 — The replication code (their first product)

5. **Would you find this group's *replication code* useful? If yes, be
   specific: what exactly would you use it for, and how? If no, say why not.**
   (paragraph, required)
   Helper: *"It's useful" is not an answer. Tell us the actual use you have in
   mind — the specific dataset, table, or workflow you'd apply it to.*
6. **How clearly did the group explain what they're replicating and what data
   they use?** (linear scale 1–5; 1 = not clear, 5 = very clear, required)

## Section 4 — The extension / new product (their pitch)

7. **In your own words, what is the main *extension or new product* this group
   is pitching — their new table/figure, cleaned dataset, or tool?**
   (paragraph, required)
8. **Would you use that extension/product? If yes, be specific about *how*
   you'd use it. If no, why not?** (paragraph, required)
   Helper: *Same as before — give us the concrete use, not just a yes.*
9. **How clearly did the group explain their extension and why it's interesting
   or useful?** (linear scale 1–5; 1 = not clear, 5 = very clear, required)

## Section 5 — Optional

10. **One concrete suggestion to make either product more useful or more
    ambitious.** (paragraph, optional)
11. (checkbox) **"I'm interested in this project — please share my name and
    email with this group so we can get in touch."**
    Helper text: *I'll send your contact info to the group separately, so it is
    never linked to the feedback you gave above.*