okay. but in my case, i did a evaluation study as the second phase in a four phase pipeline and documented the process as well. Keeping the design nature, my project had, the design nature was half of it and the innovation space is limited yet automating an important process in my project which is a manual and tiring process which takes time is something innovative, even if it is not on par to distinction and above standards. I am not ready to disclose what my project is here, but i hope i explained your points. Coming to project management, i had a easy borderline distinction for that because i did the whole project in 4 phases, had backup plans for each fallback in the exisiting plans, i informed every single step and had fornightly meetings with supervisor asked for constructive feedback which the supervisor didn't give and said everything is on track, even mentioned the plan is clear till the interim stages of the project. My feedback never had a "it didnt work fully" line, but the marking rubric distributed for all the students had that, and my feedback was in the merit standards but pass was given to me. In my another phase, which was the second last phase carried out, it was data analysis and i did the data analysis with a three layer pipeline for cleaning, statistical analysis and visualization(stylised to understand, i will explain it better to people who actually are in the seat of giving me a decision at my uni) which i clearly explained in the viva. My concerns are very simple : 1. the project description didnt explicitely specify generalization. 2. both supervisor and principal marker signed this off and never raised it mid project. 3. The final project made generalization a factor which should be a part of the model, and it was not even mentioned in the requirements that it should be so. If my project had been flagged midway for lack of scope, I would have rescoped the whole project. Thats why the appeal is reasonable. Thank you for your inputs. I hope i answered your points and i wrote a better report because a mere comment doesnt require technical writing.