Overall feedback. Overall, we are very satisfied with the project at the time of completion. This was our first Riipen project and we believe that we may have been overly ambitious in terms of scope, but we have taken this into account and we can say that our experience has been positive and valuable to xSensa. We want to thank the team and the professor for working with us. In reading the rest of our feedback, please keep in mind that the detailed points listed are places where we saw space for improvement. It was very evident that certain team members were doing the lion’s share of the work. This was especially true for section 7. If the other sections were of the same caliber, this report would have been of immense value to the company. There was a bit of a disconnect with the project in the sense that the team for the most part viewed the product as consumer-facing, rather than being part of a micro-targeted pre-launch elite service package. Product tryouts and feedback: The team did a good job in testing the product. In the report, it would have been helpful for them to have as a team prioritized on most important feedback. E.g Sections 2.1-2.3 provide feedback from individual team members, but there is no attempt to consolidate and prioritize. PESTEL analysis. This section was neither requested by us nor informative. It is also an example of an analysis that is more appropriate for a consumer product. Section 3.4 is to general and has no direct applicability to wearable EEG. Regarding CSR it is not clear what is the relevance to a product at this stage and of the type that it is. The Industry Regulation section is very good and informative and we will use this information to drill down a bit further. Licenses & Permits – section it is not clear what are the recommendations for xSensa. SWOT analysis. Strengths – good summary. Weaknesses – it would have been helpful to provide links Opportunities – good but incomplete, we would expect a lot more opportunities explored Threats – same as above. We have provided the team with access to our existing research, however, this section does not reflect the full spectrum of our competition, including the most obvious one, the Muse. STP Model There were some great discoveries in this section. The main criticism for sections 5.1 and 5.2 is that it seems that our direction towards individuals in the $350K+ range was not taken into account. Go to Market Plan This is not an actual Go to Market plan. It has some elements, but not a roadmap. A good plan normally addresses the “why?” and “how?” and in what order. Pricing The min reference used is very old (2008) and while we recognize that the team does not have access to a full set of reports, we still think that some effort could have been made to get a more recent benchmark / comparable service. 6.3 Sales. The provided tier structure is missing rationale. The suggested system was also different than what we have indicated. 6.4 Missing action items/recommendations. Sales Development This is the most valuable and developed part of the report and something that we can use in practice. Very comprehensive. This section for xSensa was the most practical, usable information provided in the entire report. It is clear that whoever worked on this section invested far more time than all of the other sections combined. Summary Once again we want to congratulate the team on the successful completion of the project and lots of good thinking in the process. Wishing you all well.