There seems to be a bit of pushback against "postmortem" and our team is ambivalent, so I changed to "retrospective."

Thank you!

Ok, added!

FYI, the Net Promoter score is 38%.

Ok, graph is updated!

Do you think "46% of scholar projects were rated 9/10 or higher" is better? What about "scholar projects were rated 8.1/10 on average" ?

We also asked mentors to rate scholars' "depth of technical ability," "breadth of AI safety knowledge," "research taste," and "value alignment." We ommitted these results from the report to prevent bloat, but your comment makes me think we should re-add them.

Yeah, I just realized the graph is wrong; it seems like the 10/10 scores were truncated. We'll upload a new graph shortly.

Cheers, Vaniver! As indicated in the figure legend for "Mentor ratings of scholar research", mentors were asked, “Taking the above [depth/breadth/taste ratings] into account, how strongly do you support the scholar's research continuing?” and prompted with:

• 10/10 = Very disappointed if [the research] didn't continue;
• 5/10 = On the fence, unsure what the right call is;
• 1/10 = Fine if research doesn't continue.

Mentors rated 18% of scholar research projects as 10/10 and 28% as 9/10.

Also, last year's program was 8-weeks and this year's program is 10-weeks.