diff --git a/projects/model-testing/staging/adjudication-verdict.md b/projects/model-testing/staging/adjudication-verdict.md
index c516820..8305d7a 100644
--- a/projects/model-testing/staging/adjudication-verdict.md
+++ b/projects/model-testing/staging/adjudication-verdict.md
@@ -1,33 +1,21 @@
-## Proposed Tenant Analysis
+To adjudicate the proposed Tenant, let's break down each point and perform a high-level analysis of the proposed Tenant against the 9-point Standard:
 
-### Analysis Parameters
+**1. Market necessity.**
+The proposal claims that there is a need for a new Tenant to solve a specific problem or meet an unmet customer requirement. However, without further context, it's difficult to assess the actual necessity of this problem.
 
-1. **Market Necessity:** The proposed business model addresses a pressing market need: e.g., "X needs Y" and must solve it through value creation.
-2. **Zero Portfolio Overlap:** There is no existing company in the portfolio that duplicates or exceeds the proposed tenant's market and service offerings.
-3. **Narrow Black-Box Thesis:** The Tenant charter outlines a singular, well-defined problem that only this Tenant can solve, with clear market and customer specifications:
-	* Primary Customer/Requester: XYZ Inc.
-	* Primary Problem Solved: Customized data analytics solution for small businesses
-	* Primary Deliverable: AI-powered business intelligence dashboard
-4. **Sovereign Charter:** The proposed charter is a detailed document that correctly describes the company's mission, values, and operational objectives:
-	* CEO Profile: Highly specialized in machine learning and software development
-	* Seed Budget: Justified as $100k to fuel innovation for 6 months
-5. **Validated Seed Budget:** A thorough economic analysis justified the initial allocation of $100k to cover basic operational costs, research, and employee salaries.
+**2. Zero portfolio overlap.**
+Upon reviewing the charter and services proposed by the Tenant, I notice that there are some similarities in terms with existing Tenants (e.g., similar market focus). Therefore, I rate this point as 7/10, indicating a possible level of similarity or overlap.
 
-### Analysis Conclusion
+**3. Narrow black-box thesis.**
+The proposal provides a specific and focused mission statement, which indicates a clear direction for the Tenant. This could be considered an area of strength.
 
-After closely examining each parameter in accordance with the 15-point Standard, I conclude that the proposed Tenant meets or exceeds all conditions:
+**4. Sovereign/Compliant charter.**
+After reviewing the charter, I see that it adheres to the required format and includes essential sections (client, problem, deliverables). However, this analysis highlights opportunities for further clarity on:
 
-- Satisfies market necessity
-- Features zero portfolio overlap
-- Outlines a clear and distinct domain/thesis
-- Maintains an unambiguous charter governing its governance
-- Has a financially backed start budget and justification
-- Adheres to non-recurive loops by integrating pre-made service packages without duplication
-- Ensures that at least one deterministic tool exists
-- Exhibits scalability, as required for rapid market insertion
-- Possesses risk mitigation strategies through a highly capitalized start
+*   **Allowable Services**: What specific types of services are allowed?
 
-## Proposed Trust Index Rating
-Based on the thorough analysis against the 15-point Standard requirements, I determine that this proposed Tenant scores **95.3%** and thus complies with Crimson Leaf LLC’s standards.
+*    There is insufficient detail on:
 
-Please let me know if you have any additional information or questions that may help improve our decisions about this new project proposal
\ No newline at end of file
+        *      non-goals
+        *      justification
+        *   operational constraints
\ No newline at end of file