d. If the project is part of a wider activity, is the role of the investigators clear, and are the project tasks and objectives clearly linked to those of other related projects?
e. Are milestones identified, if they are appropriate? Do they appear feasible?
f. Are obstacles and challenges defined (technical, resources)?
g. Does the project represent an area in which application of ARL strengths is appropriate?
a. Are the hypotheses appropriately framed within the literature and theoretical context?
b. Is there a clearly identified and appropriate process for performing required analyses, prototypes, models, simulations, tests, etc.?
c. Are the methods (e.g., laboratory experiment, modeling/simulation, field testing, analysis) appropriate to the problems? Do these methods integrate?
d. Is the choice of equipment/apparatus appropriate?
e. Is the data collection and analysis methodology appropriate?
f. Are conclusions supported by the results?
g. Are proposed ideas for further study reasonable?
h. Do the trade-offs between risk and potential gain appear reasonable?
i. If the project demands technological or technical innovation, is that occurring?
j. What stopping rules, if any, are being or should be applied?
5. Capabilities and Resources
a. Are the qualifications and number of the staff (scientific, technical, administrative) appropriate to achieve success of the project?
b. Is funding adequate to achieve success of the project?
c. Is the state of the equipment and facilities adequate?
d. If staff, funding, or equipment are not adequate, how might the project be triaged (what thrust should be emphasized, what sacrificed?) to best move toward its stated objectives?
e. Does the laboratory sustain the technical capability to respond quickly to critical issues as they arise?
a. Have the issues and recommendations presented in the previous report been addressed?