Even reviews of work can be overwritten

[efg]

See email on 12/18 with subject line, Re: Request for regrade, Need 5 points for A to A+:

I looked into the database, and here are your most verbose reviews I can find for the four teams.  In the case of E2353 and G2351, these are the current review versions.  In the case of NTNX2 and NTNX3, they are earlier reviews that were overwritten:
E2353 team:
mysql> select * from answers where response_id = 164969;
+---------+-------------+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| id      | question_id | answer | comments                                                                             | response_id |
+---------+-------------+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1830369 |        4519 |      5 |

The document is complete with the problem statement, design and the test plan

|      164969 |
| 1830370 |        4520 |      5 |

Yes

                                                                          |      164969 |
| 1830371 |        4521 |      5 |                                                                                      |      164969 |
| 1830372 |        4522 |      5 |                                                                                      |      164969 |
| 1830373 |        4523 |   NULL |                                                                                      |      164969 |
+---------+-------------+--------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------+

G2351 team:
+---------+-------------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| id      | question_id | answer | comments                                                                    | response_id |
+---------+-------------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1830384 |        4519 |      4 |

Project purpose could be defined a little better
rest is all good

|      164972 |
| 1830385 |        4520 |      5 |                                                                             |      164972 |
| 1830386 |        4521 |      4 |

In some places, it is a little complicated to understand

            |      164972 |
| 1830387 |        4522 |      5 |                                                                             |      164972 |
| 1830388 |        4523 |      5 |

Few diagrams used

                                                   |      164972 |
+---------+-------------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------+

NTNX2 team:
+---------+-------------+--------+----------+-------------+
| id      | question_id | answer | comments | response_id |
+---------+-------------+--------+----------+-------------+
| 1825181 |        4519 |      5 |          |      163426 |
| 1825182 |        4520 |      5 |          |      163426 |
| 1825183 |        4521 |      4 |          |      163426 |
| 1825184 |        4522 |      5 |          |      163426 |
| 1825185 |        4523 |      4 |          |      163426 |
+---------+-------------+--------+----------+-------------+

NTNX3 team:
+---------+-------------+--------+---------------------------+-------------+
| id      | question_id | answer | comments                  | response_id |
+---------+-------------+--------+---------------------------+-------------+
| 1831321 |        4519 |      5 |

Good documentation

|      165188 |
| 1831322 |        4520 |      5 |

Yes, the 

    |      165188 |
| 1831323 |        4521 |   NULL | [Earlier version has 5]   |      165188 |
| 1831324 |        4522 |   NULL | [Earlier version has 5]   |      165188 |
| 1831325 |        4523 |   NULL | [Earlier version has 4]   |      165188 |
+---------+-------------+--------+---------------------------+-------------+

In the case of the NTNX3 review, when you edited the review to insert comments, it seems to have nulled out the scores for the other criteria that you did not edit.  This is clearly a bug.  However, the text that you did add, except for two of the comments for the G2351 team, did not state anything that was not already apparent from the score that you gave.  You did not give suggestions on how any of the teams could improve.  And giving suggestions was required in order to get credit for the reviews.  From the 1st-day slides:

So I think that even if your original comments were preserved, the reviews would have been likely to be given 0s.  Since you added a few comments, they might have been awarded a small number of points.  When I look through similar reviews for this assignment, it seems that they have received about 6 points.

[efg]

We hypothesize that this is three issues.

• Reviews are overwritten by a new Response object with a different rubric. We think this is fixed.
• A user cannot edit a Response that they have submitted. We think this is fixed.
• A review is overwritten with a new Response object. We have not found this bug.