Thank you for adding that! I always appreciate your comments.
Regarding your endorsement and whether it’s a positive thing or not:
I understand that over the years you’ve accumulated a bit of a negative reputation with some folks because of your slightly aggressive communication style and consistent questioning of IF decisions. However, I’ve always found many of your criticisms to be valid. So I’d honestly rather have more folks like you in the community, who aggressively question our ideas & decisions, as opposed to having an army of mindless drones who never try to poke holes in the things we try to do. Without scrutiny, we can’t have excellence - and I do think your scrutiny over the years has had a positive impact overall. So, I am honored to have your vote and I fully expect you to keep doing your thing going forward. 
Regarding the lowest scoring: tbh I was quite surprised (and slightly concerned for the Treasury) when I found out that other reviewers didn’t end up with similarly low scores. I just followed the rubric they previously designed, which I thought was a nice framework. For reference, let’s just have a quick look at one of the evaluation metrics: Relevance to the Shimmer/IOTA Ecosystem
Both the technical & non-technical proposals we reviewed were explicit about the fact that they work with multiple blockchains. Neither proposal made an effort to talk specifically about Shimmer or IOTA (which makes sense, because these were originally Polkadot proposals). Yet, somehow, some reviewers (including Lead candidates) still gave them more than 1 point on this metric.
I genuinely don’t get that. Could it be that the inclusion of “(…) plans to deploy later onto IOTA Mainnet” in the rubric there is what led some reviewers to hand out 3 points instead of 1?
It’s unclear. It’d be interesting to hear the perspective of other reviewers on this. In any case, I still stand by the scores I awarded them. These proposals were bad in their current state - they shouldn’t come anywhere close to getting funded. If Polkadot decided to fund them, that’s their problem. I bet they got nothing out of it.
We don’t have as much $ as Polkadot, so we must uphold significantly higher standards.