Stakeholder reviews of the project consisted of classmates, people from the showcase and the experts of the presentation discussed further in the section below. Stakeholders comments and critics of the project were very positive with a few minor tweaks and changes just to make the project, just a couple of features that people want to see. Some of the things that stakeholders wanted to see was a light with changeable RGB, and a flickering feature. As for sound based stimuli, it was said that it would be nice to see a way to upload custom audio files instead of just one type of wakeup sound that comes with the prototype. Classmates comments are very few but also positive and the project being very well received among piers.

Between the two experts, their evaluations were consistent in the majority of categories with some outliers. It can also be seen that from the "Tech" evaluator, there evaluation was a lot more critical than that compared to the "Process" evaluator, it can be assumed that their different backgrounds would effect the way they would evaluate the presentation and project. The most common pattern between the two was the although the Tech Evaluator's grading was more harsh, where the grading of the Process evaluator is much higher, one category would be graded highly for the process evaluator, the tech evaluator's grading would also be highly graded too but to a somewhat lesser extent. A good example of this would be for categories 3-4. where the Process evaluator's had graded a 10 for both categories, and while the Tech evaluator would grade an 8. However, this pattern is not always that straightforward and inconsistent which is to be expected since both evaluations are both based off of opinion of the evaluator. Another example can be seen in category 5. in which the process evaluator had graded a 9 while the Tech evaluator had graded 8. This compared to the other example does not align with the pattern of the previous example.

There are several outliers that can be spotted when comparing the Tech evaluator to the process evaluator in the some categories which can be viewed as one evaluator not agreeing with the others evaluator's stance. This can be seen in categories 2. and 6. where the Tech evaluator had scored 6 in both categories while the Process evaluator had 9 in both.

As for the comments concerning the design and development process of the project, both reviewers commented that it was well put together and had excellent information regarding the design process. Comments regarding the actual presentation were also well received, with both commenting that their was a full participation of each member in the presentation. Added comments from the Process reviewer states more about how the different strengths of the team members were able to create a finished final prototype.

Analysis of the feedback left by piers and stakeholders were proven to be insightful and useful towards our completion of the project, with several of the critiques from reviewers put into consideration in making the project. However most of the things that people would like to see that was discussed in the Outside Stakeholder Review were unable to met either do the time requirements or the possibility of it not being feasible with the way the project was going. The positive feedback in general that was provided allowed Edison. Co to understand that the project would be something that people would want to see and buy and gave reinforcement that the future prototypes did not cut from any improvements that were made with the previous prototypes and that the project was heading in a good direction.

Moments of when Edison Co. presenting their final prototype and design