Evaluation of Results Sample Clauses
The 'Evaluation of results' clause defines the process and criteria by which the outcomes of a project, service, or deliverable are assessed to determine if they meet agreed-upon standards or objectives. Typically, this clause outlines who is responsible for conducting the evaluation, the methods or benchmarks to be used, and the timeframe within which the assessment must occur. Its core practical function is to ensure that both parties have a clear, objective basis for determining whether contractual obligations have been fulfilled, thereby reducing disputes and promoting accountability.
Evaluation of Results. All quan- titative results shall be evaluated by an appropriate statistical method.
Evaluation of Results. All observed results, quantitative or incidental, shall be evaluated by an appropriate statistical method.
Evaluation of Results. All q u a n- t i t a t ive r es u l t s s h a ll be ev a l u a t ed b y a n a pp r op r i a t e s t a t i s t ic a l m e t h od.
Evaluation of Results. PLTW shall study and evaluate the effectiveness of the Program on an ongoing basis in order to update instructional, curricular and assessment materials and otherwise improve the instruction that participating entities provide to students. These efforts will include the development, validation, and administration of assessments, examinations, surveys and other measurement tools. PLTW shall conduct, and the Program Participant shall participate in, online systematic assessments and regular evaluation processes.
Evaluation of Results. Once all of the simulation results are collected, TransCore and KLD will compile an evaluation of the findings. Each operational issue will be described in the report along with lessons learned, performance notes, and recommendations for system, field, configuration, and algorithm enhancements. The report will conclude with a cost/benefit analysis for the deployment of the ACDSS in the field, and will provide recommended deployment areas or corridors prioritized by the benefit that may be achieved for each of them. • Evaluation Report
Evaluation of Results. In order to determine the degree of compliance with the Project’s objective and its results, the Borrower or the Executing Agency, as the case may be, shall provide the Bank with the following information:
(a) A mid-term evaluation, including the resources from the JICA Loan, which will be presented to the Bank no later than three (3) years from the date of first disbursement or once fifty (50%) percent of the resources under this Loan have been disbursed and justified, whichever comes first, will focus on analyzing progress achieved, aspects of coordination and execution, and recommendations to attain the proposed targets and investment sustainability; and
(b) A final evaluation, including the resources from the JICA Loan, which will be presented to the Bank up to one hundred and twenty (120) days after the final disbursement justification, and will include: (i) the degree of fulfillment of the targets specified in the Results Matrix; (ii) an ex-post cost-benefit analysis; (iii) an assessment of the performance of the Executing Agency; (iv) factors affecting implementation; and (v) lessons learned and recommendations for the design of future operations.
Evaluation of Results. The most current version of the Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) should be the primary screening values used at the time that screening is performed. Using MCLs to screen out COCs may lead to unacceptable risks if multiple contaminants are present due to how MCLs are derived. MCLs for some individual COCs may be at the upper end of the risk range and when combined with other COCs may result in an unacceptable risk being screened out in the screening phase which is unlikely to happen with RSLs. For these reasons the use of MCLs as primary screening numbers is inappropriate. It is not clear whether MCLs were used to screen out COPCs in the HHRA.
Evaluation of Results a. If the number of defective cans in the sample is equal to, or less than, the acceptance number, the lot will be accepted.
b. If the number of defective cans in the sample is equal to, or greater than, the rejection number, the lot will be rejected.
c. If any critical defects are found, or if the number of defective cans in any sample are greater than acceptance level, then the preceding pallet must also be resampled. Resample the preceding pallet at the same sample size described under Section 4. If the number of defective cans found on the preceding pallet are greater than the acceptance level then that pallet is rejected. Resample each preceding pallet until a pallet is found to have a number of defective cans in the sample equal to, or less than, the acceptance number.
d. There must be communication between the fork truck driver and the responsible personnel doing the AQL. No pallet may be removed from the palletizer until the personnel responsible have signed the inventory tag or placed a hold tag on the pallet.
Evaluation of Results. A. If the number of defective ends in the sample is equal to, or less than, the acceptance number, the lot will be accepted as is.
B. If the number of defective ends in the sample is equal to, or greater than, the rejection number, the lot will be rejected.
C. If any critical defects are found, or if the number of defective ends in any sample are greater than the acceptance level, the preceding pallet must also be resampled. Resample the preceding pallet at the same sample size described under Section 7. If the number of defective ends found on the preceding pallet are greater than the acceptance level this pallet should also be considered unacceptable.
D. There must be communication between the fork truck driver and the quality control personnel doing the AQL. No pallet may be removed from the sample area until quality control has signed the inventory tag or placed a hold tag on the pallet.
Evaluation of Results. 5.1. The test results are submitted to the evaluation procedure in accordance with Appendix 4.
5.2. Test results shall not be multiplied by deterioration factors.