I think it started on Wednesday 1st February. From the spreadsheet, couple of proposals were ranked on the 1st
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0
If it is done by a machine, there is most likely a logic. It is possible, but in this case not efficient to design a program that says "take 100 scores randomly, divide them per panel, rank them according to x". Most likely they are ranked consecutively or according to a certain criterion. Consecutive number, date of submission, or most likely date of approval of the final score by the panel... are all good guesses.
What about the folks that remained in evaluation until the end and still got granted? There's at least one in the spreadsheet, perhaps more that didn't add the informationlyb wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 10:53 amTo me, it is intuitive from last year's spreadsheet that none of the applicants with evaluation to ranking changed on 2nd March or afternoon of 1st March was granted. To be honest, the correlation between the evaluation/ranking changing time and the winning chance is also clear in general. The two things that may challenge these conclusions were the insufficient samples and the uncertainty of the time when they checked the status.
Yes, but his/her situation was very special. He/She even did not change from submission to evaluation on 3rd March. A possible case maybe that the panel needs to reevaluate his/her Evaluation Report for some reasons. But it indeed brings some hope.michelef wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:05 amWhat about the folks that remained in evaluation until the end and still got granted? There's at least one in the spreadsheet, perhaps more that didn't add the informationlyb wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 10:53 amTo me, it is intuitive from last year's spreadsheet that none of the applicants with evaluation to ranking changed on 2nd March or afternoon of 1st March was granted. To be honest, the correlation between the evaluation/ranking changing time and the winning chance is also clear in general. The two things that may challenge these conclusions were the insufficient samples and the uncertainty of the time when they checked the status.
I agree, in general it seems that those who changed the first day got the grant or were in reseve list, the following day there were seals of excellence, and then lower scores. But as far as I know, other years went differently.lyb wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 10:53 amTo me, it is intuitive from last year's spreadsheet that none of the applicants with evaluation to ranking changed on 2nd March or afternoon of 1st March was granted. To be honest, the correlation between the evaluation/ranking changing time and the winning chance is also clear in general. The two things that may challenge these conclusions were the insufficient samples and the uncertainty of the time when they checked the status.
I actually checked this Forum in previous years with the key word 'ranking'. In general, it always follows this trend. However, there was one special year when the changing to Ranking happened twice (2017 or 2018, not sure), and the 2nd ranked batch got awarded. But it has never happened again so far.CGN wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:20 amI agree, in general it seems that those who changed the first day got the grant or were in reseve list, the following day there were seals of excellence, and then lower scores. But as far as I know, other years went differently.lyb wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 10:53 amTo me, it is intuitive from last year's spreadsheet that none of the applicants with evaluation to ranking changed on 2nd March or afternoon of 1st March was granted. To be honest, the correlation between the evaluation/ranking changing time and the winning chance is also clear in general. The two things that may challenge these conclusions were the insufficient samples and the uncertainty of the time when they checked the status.