Item 14_2026 Ineligible Appeals Summary — original pdf

Backup

INELIGIBLE APPEALS – WORKING GROUP REPORT Executive Summary Overview A total of 88 appeals were submitted across ACME funding programs (84 in English, 4 in Spanish). This report covers only those appeals identified as ineligible based on ACME’s formal appeal requirements outlined in Appendix C: Appeals Process of the Funding Guidelines. Under Appendix C, an appeal may proceed only when it clearly demonstrates: 1. Panel Administration Error 2. Conflict of Interest 3. Reviewer or Staff Error involving information that was correctly submitted but overlooked or misrepresented Appeals cannot proceed when they are based on reviewer disagreement, funding thresholds, applicant mistakes, guideline disagreement, or submission of new information after the deadline. Process Context All appeal requests were submitted through the official ACME Appeals Form. Per ACME procedure: 1. ACME Staff First-Level Review a. Staff screens each appeal to determine whether it meets one or more of the qualifying grounds under Appendix C. b. Appeals lacking specificity, evidence, or qualifying grounds do not advance. 2. Appeals Working Group Review – April 17 (Friday) a. For appeals that pass staff screening, the Working Group will review cases and staff recommendations. b. The Working Group consists of two Arts Commissioners and two Music Commissioners. c. The group will confirm, modify, or overturn staff’s eligibility determinations, and issue formal recommendations. 3. Report Out to Full Arts Commission – April 20 (Monday) a. The Working Group’s recommendations are presented to the full Arts Commission for a vote. b. Final determinations are then communicated to applicants. This report provides cleaned, standardized language for the Working Group’s review and documentation. Key Findings Across All Ineligible Appeals • Most appeals challenged reviewer opinions or eligibility outcomes — not appealable under Appendix C. • Many applicants misunderstood funding thresholds, program requirements, or their own responsibility to provide sufficient evidence. • Several appeals lacked specific identification of error, cited incomplete or corrupted uploads, or attempted to introduce new information. • No ineligible appeal, if granted, would have resulted in an award because scoring gaps remained too large. Funding Impact Only one case involved a potential scoring correction, but even after considering the adjustment, the applicant would not reach the relevant funding threshold. Thus, none of the ineligible appeals would have resulted in a different funding decision. AUSTIN LIVE MUSIC FUND (ALMF) – INELIGIBLE APPEALS Across ALMF, the majority of appeals did not meet the eligibility criteria outlined in Appendix C of the Funding Guidelines. Nearly all submissions fell into one or more of these non‑appealable categories: Insufficient or unclear documentation provided during the original application • Disagreement with reviewer judgment or scoring outcomes • • Applicant misunderstanding of eligibility rules or funding thresholds • Attempts to submit new or corrected information after the deadline • Applicant error, including corrupted or unreadable uploads • Lack of specificity about alleged reviewer or staff error • No direct connection shown between the claimed issue and a scoring impact 1. Jacob Broido Issue Raised: Appellant alleges reviewer error for multiple evidence-based questions, including audience capacity, sync licensing, and out-of-Austin performances. Findings: • Documentation provided did not establish required evidence (e.g., capacity, performer identity, distribution numbers). • The appeal disputes reviewer interpretation and application of evidence, which is not an eligible appeal ground. • No qualifying panel administration error, conflict of interest, or staff error identified. Determination: Not eligible for appeal consideration. 2. Raul Ochoa Issue Raised: Claim that reviewer failed to award points for artist development. Findings: • Applicant selected “none of the above” and uploaded no evidence. • The appeal challenges the scoring outcome, not a process error. • No qualifying grounds identified under Appendix C. Determination: Not eligible. 3. Ross Margitza Issue Raised: Applicant claims their score entitles them to funding. Findings: • Applicant misinterprets funding thresholds (minimum for $20,000 level is 47, not 17). • Appeal is based on disagreement with outcome, which is not appealable. Determination: Not eligible. 4. Daniel Al‑Jamal Issue Raised: Appellant alleges reviewer oversight of evidence regarding distribution and out‑of‑Austin shows. Findings: • Submitted evidence did not support selected answers (e.g., 0 physical distribution; limited documentation for out-of-Austin shows). • Even if one point were added, it would not raise the applicant to the funding threshold. • Disagreements with scoring are not appealable. Determination: Not eligible. 5. Jamey Simms Issue Raised: Appellant claims reviewer could not open uploaded evidence file. Findings: • File was corrupted or too large; Submittable staff also could not open it. • Applicant is responsible for ensuring readable uploads. • Technical issues on the applicant side do not qualify as panel administration or staff error. Determination: Not eligible. 6. Cheer Up Charlies Issue Raised: Appellant objects to extended application deadline and believes additional time would have improved evidence. Findings: • Deadline extension occurred after their submission; however, appeals cannot be based on changed circumstances or additional materials. • Even if points had been granted, total score would not meet funding threshold. Determination: Not eligible. 7. Fallon Franklin Issue Raised: Appellant claims reviewers overlooked evidence for shows, recordings, pay rates, and benefit concerts. Findings: • Reviewers awarded points based on provided evidence. • Some items lacked required documentation (e.g., distribution numbers). • Appeal seeks reconsideration of reviewer judgment, which is not permitted. Determination: Not eligible. 8. Saxon Pub Issue Raised: No specific appeal grounds provided; general complaint about not receiving a grant. Findings: Lacks required specificity under Appendix C. • • Does not allege any qualifying error. Determination: Not eligible. 9. 1KSpin Issue Raised: No stated reason for appeal. Findings: • Insufficient detail; fails the basic requirement for eligibility. Determination: Not eligible. 10. Jeffrey Klein Issue Raised: Claims review overlooked evidence for sync licensing and distribution. Findings: • Provided screenshots did not verify artist identity or distribution numbers. • Reviewer interpretation aligns with application requirements. • No qualifying reviewer error identified. Determination: Not eligible. 11. Paula Aubert Issue Raised: Appellant claims reviewer incorrectly stated there were no recordings. Findings: • Reviewer noted insufficient evidence for physical recording quantities; this aligns with scoring criteria. • Appellant did receive credit for streaming evidence. • No process or staff error identified. Determination: Not eligible. 12. Mark Alan Williams Issue Raised: Claim that uploads were overlooked. Findings: • Appellant received credit for BMI membership and most other documented evidence. • Appeal is a disagreement with scoring, not a qualifying error. Determination: Not eligible. 13. Wesley McGhee Issue Raised: Appellant asserts reviewer misinterpreted recording distribution evidence. Findings: • Applicant entered “0,” and a single photo cannot substitute for required quantities. • Even if fully credited, applicant would not meet the funding threshold. • Appeal concerns reviewer outcome, not a qualifying error. Determination: Not eligible. 14. Justin Zamieroski Issue Raised: Claims errors in ticketing, discounts, and internships questions. Findings: • Evidence provided did not support selected answers (e.g., ticket sales). • Applicant acknowledges incorrect answer on internships. • Even with scoring adjustments, applicant remains below threshold. Determination: Not eligible. 15. Marshal Spaulding Issue Raised: Appellant claims staff advised applying for $20,000 level with fallback to $5,000. Findings: • No evidence supports this claim; guidelines do not provide fallback. • Appeal is based on guideline misunderstanding. Determination: Not eligible. 16. Mutungamiri Masiane (Tha Kid Chillz) Issue Raised: Belief that score should yield funding. Findings: • Applicant misinterprets threshold. • Not an appealable issue. Determination: Not eligible. 17. Radio East (ALMF) Issue Raised: Misinterpretation of expenses definition. Findings: • Applicant acknowledges interpreting question narrowly; interpretation issues are not appeal grounds. Determination: Not eligible. 18. Radio Coffee & Beer (ALMF) Issue Raised: Same issue as Radio East regarding expenses interpretation. Findings: • Applicant’s reasoning does not meet appeal criteria. Determination: Not eligible. 19. Rodrigo Nieves Issue Raised: No specific appeal grounds provided. Findings: • Appeal form lacks required detail. Determination: Not eligible. 20. Susana Ramirez Issue Raised: None; applicant was approved for award. Determination: Not an appeal. No action required. 21. William Tanner Issue Raised: Claim regarding accessibility features for audiences. Findings: • Appellant cited ADA-required wheelchair access, which is not eligible for scoring credit. • Disagreement with scoring criteria is not appealable. Determination: Not eligible. 22. Tarela Ekaye Issue Raised: Belief that category was switched due to email. Findings: • No record of such email; no evidence of staff error. • Appeal lacks a qualifying basis. Determination: Not eligible. 23. Terrany Johnson Issue Raised: Appellant believes evidence should count for both attending and participating in courses. Findings: • Evidence only supported participation, not attendance. • Scoring decision is aligned with criteria; not an eligible appeal issue. Determination: Not eligible. 24. Elijah Jane Echeveste Issue Raised: Alleged conflict of interest involving a music commissioner. Findings: • Commissioner is not a panelist and had no role in scoring. • No evidence of conflict or improper influence. • Does not meet Appendix C criteria. Determination: Not eligible. 25. Collin Shook (Monks Jazz Club – ALMF) Issue Raised: Attempts to submit new information and revise responses. Findings: • New or changed answers are not permitted after submission. • Appeal raises reviewer opinion disagreements, which are not appealable. Determination: Not eligible. 26. The Hole in the Wall Issue Raised: Request for detailed scores. Findings: • Not an appeal; information request should be addressed through staff appointment. Determination: Not eligible.  CREATIVE SPACE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CSAP) This section summarizes all CSAP appeals that ACME staff determined did not meet the eligibility requirements to move forward under Appendix C. The Appeals Working Group will review these determinations on April 17. Across CSAP, the most common reasons for ineligibility were: • Appeals challenging eligibility rulings, which are explicitly not appealable. • Appeals lacking specificity or documentation showing a qualifying error. • Misunderstandings of required operating budget, ownership restrictions, or required answer selection. • Disputes with reviewer interpretation of applicant-selected answers (not grounds for appeal). 1. Radio Coffee and Beer – CSAP Issue Raised: Applicant appeals being deemed ineligible due to property ownership overlap between the creative space and the property owner. Findings: • Rally Austin, the City’s third-party administrator, verified that the creative space owner is also the president of the property owner company, Telvending Corp. • The CSAP guidelines state that creative spaces that own their property are not eligible for funding. • The appeal challenges the eligibility rules and their application, which is specifically not a valid appeal ground under Appendix C. Conclusion: Not eligible for appeal consideration (ineligible applicant based on ownership). 2. Radio East – CSAP Issue Raised: Appellant claims reviewer incorrectly assessed the question: “Select the answers that best describe the extent to which funds will address a compelling need for the creative space.” Appellant argues they were penalized for stating they would use funds to increase shows, audiences, and profits without explicitly stating continuation of existing services. Findings: • Applicant did not select the answer choice “the funds will help the applicant continue existing services.” • Reviewer scoring aligned with the selected response and evidence. • This constitutes disagreement with reviewer interpretation of applicant’s chosen answer—not an allowable ground for appeal. Conclusion: Not eligible under Appendix C. 3. The Museum of Human Achievement (MoHA) – CSAP Issue Raised: Appellant contests being deemed ineligible, claiming it was due to nonprofit status. Findings: Ineligibility was not due to nonprofit status. • • Applicant was deemed ineligible because the creative space owns its property, which is explicitly prohibited under CSAP eligibility rules. • Ownership-based eligibility determinations are not appealable. • The applicant was notified of ineligibility via Submittable on December 11, 2025. Conclusion: Not eligible for appeal consideration. 4. Nathanael Rendon (The Electric Church) – CSAP Issue Raised: Appellant asserts ambiguity around the question: “Is the creative space located in a City of Austin recognized Cultural District or Corridor?” They answered “Not located…” but later argued that the question was unclear and they could not obtain clarification. Findings: • Appellant’s issue concerns interpretation of the question, not staff or reviewer error. • • No evidence of panel administration error, conflict, or overlooked information. Interpretation disputes do not meet any qualifying ground for appeal. Conclusion: Not eligible under Appendix C. 5. Anthony Celenza – CSAP Issue Raised: Appellant states they found scoring difficult to understand because reviewer comments indicated evidence was sufficient. Findings: • “Sufficient evidence” means evidence supported the selected answer, not that the applicant selected the answer with the maximum possible points. • Reviewer comments did not indicate an error; they reflected accurate review of the answers chosen. • Appeal seeks clarification on scoring but does not identify a qualifying error. Conclusion: Not eligible under Appendix C. 6. Collin Shook (Monks Jazz Club) – CSAP Issue Raised: Appellant believes they should have earned more points, as they received full points for all selected answers and uploaded evidence. Findings: • Applicant did receive all points associated with every answer they selected. • Some questions had additional answer options worth more points; the applicant simply did not select them. • Changing or adding answers post‑submission is not allowed. • Appeal does not identify staff/reviewer error; it challenges their own answer selections. Conclusion: Not eligible for appeal consideration. 7. Rozco’s Comedy Club – CSAP Issue Raised: Appellant states they found scoring difficult to understand because reviewer comments indicated evidence was sufficient. Findings: • “Sufficient evidence” means evidence supported the selected answer, not that the applicant selected the answer with the maximum possible points. • Reviewer comments did not indicate an error; they reflected accurate review of the answers chosen. • Appeal seeks clarification on scoring but does not identify a qualifying error. Conclusion: Not eligible under Appendix C.  ELEVATE Appeals submitted under Elevate most commonly failed to meet Appendix C criteria because they: lacked specificity regarding which reviewer or which score was alleged to be erroneous; cited variations in reviewer opinions, which is not an appealable ground; • • • misinterpreted reviewer comments (e.g., feedback for improvement vs. scoring rationale); • attempted to introduce new information; • or challenged panelist styles, differences in subjective interpretation, or scoring outcomes. The Elevate program relies heavily on narrative review and panelist judgment, which substantially limits what can be appealed: reviewer opinion is not an appealable error. 1. American Artists Project Issue Raised: General statements about wide variance between reviewer scores; appellant does not identify specific reviewers or specific scoring errors. Findings: • Appeal lacks specificity required by Appendix C. • Variation in panelist scoring is expected and not grounds for appeal unless tied to a documented process error. • No evidence of panel administration error, conflict, or reviewer oversight. Determination: Not eligible for appeal. 2. George Duron Issue Raised: States Reviewer 2 provided notably shorter comments and lower scores. Findings: • Reviewer comment length is not grounds for appeal. • • Appeal does not identify a qualifying process issue. Lower scoring alone does not constitute reviewer error. Determination: Not eligible. 3. Artly World Issue Raised: Cites disagreements with reviewer opinions on Mission/Vision, outreach, and marketing, with specific reference to Reviewer 2. Findings: • Most concerns relate to reviewer judgment (not appealable). • Appellant suggests Reviewer 2 overlooked flyers for seniors; evidence of “families” is unclear. • Comments align with reviewers’ interpretation; no procedural error identified. • Acknowledged panel administration issue regarding internet disconnection was handled correctly (timer paused). Determination: Not eligible. 4. Alyssa Taylor Wendt Issue Raised: Concerns about reviewer comments related to budget, team member experience, and marketing. Findings: Issues raised reflect reviewer opinion, not process errors. • • Where appellants cite “disallowed expenses” concerns, reviewer comments did not affect scoring. • No evidence of overlooked or misrepresented information. Determination: Not eligible. 5. Connie Arismendi Issue Raised: Second appeal submitted correcting the first; claims reviewers could not open attachments. Findings: • Staff cannot confirm whether attachments were actually inaccessible during review. • Reviewers can adjust scores during finalization based on peer discussion. • No evidence of panel administration error. Determination: Not eligible. 6. Candyce L. Rusk Issue Raised: Concern about reviewer being “flustered” due to internet issues. Findings: • Timer was paused appropriately; procedures followed. • Appeal challenges reviewer style and opinion, not a qualifying error. Determination: Not eligible. 7. The Levite Laboratory Issue Raised: Appeal lacks specific detail. Findings: • Without identification of reviewer, question, or scoring error, the appeal cannot move forward. • No qualifying grounds identified. Determination: Not eligible. 8. Samantha Kins (StudioKollisions) Issue Raised: Belief that Reviewer 1 scored inconsistently relative to others. Findings: • Differences in reviewer scoring are not grounds for appeal. • No evidence that any score was based on overlooked information. • No process violations identified. Determination: Not eligible. 9. Rosie Ninesling Issue Raised: Lists reviewer-opinion disagreements for community connection and tourist connection. Findings: • All items constitute differences in reviewer evaluation, not appealable errors. • No specific overlooked evidence cited. Determination: Not eligible. 10. Timika Mitchell Issue Raised: Concern that a reviewer may have had a conflict of interest. Findings: • Staff verified score accuracy. • Appellant cannot identify which reviewer allegedly had the conflict. • No evidence of undisclosed conflict, as required for Appendix C. Determination: Not eligible. 11. Song Rise Arts Issue Raised: Claims Reviewer 2 scored lower than other reviewers. Findings: Lower scoring is not, on its own, evidence of error. • • No specific documentation was overlooked or misrepresented. • Conflict-of-interest issues were mitigated (recusal occurred where needed). Determination: Not eligible. 12. Denise Prince Issue Raised: States Reviewer 3 scored lower than others and disputes several categories. Findings: • Reviewer 3’s scoring aligns with reviewer judgment, not error. • Some references (e.g., Question 3 for Reviewer 6) appear mismatched or incomplete, weakening specificity. • No qualifying error identified. Determination: Not eligible. 13. Central Texas Fashion Coalition Issue Raised: Claims bias from Reviewer 5 and errors “throughout” but does not specify the errors. Findings: Lacks specificity required under Appendix C. • • Reviewer’s scoring pattern was not consistently the lowest, undermining claim of bias. • No evidence of conflict-of-interest or reviewer/staff error. Determination: Not eligible. 14. J.C. King Issue Raised: Claims Reviewer 3 scored lower due to conflict or error. Findings: • No specific conflict-of-interest is identified or evidenced. • Differences in reviewer scoring do not qualify as error. Determination: Not eligible. 15. Aaron Rochlen / Under the Rock – AR Artist Development Issue Raised: Believes application was treated unfairly as an arts group rather than individual. Findings: • This is a disagreement with category placement or interpretation, not a process error. • No qualifying grounds identified. Determination: Not eligible. 16. Shawn (Tarver) Issue Raised: Refers broadly to missing information despite attachments being included. Findings: • All reviewers scored application similarly and consistently. • No evidence that materials were inaccessible. • No qualifying error identified. Determination: Not eligible. 17. Picasso Presents Issue Raised: Wants to be considered as an independent promoter (ALMF category) due to perceived better outcomes there. Findings: • Applicant was placed in correct Elevate category based on eligibility. • Disagreement with category is not an appealable issue. Determination: Not eligible. 18. Steef Crombach Issue Raised: Reviewer-opinion disagreements. Findings: • All concerns relate to subjective reviewer interpretation. • No evidence of process error or overlooked information. Determination: Not eligible. 19. Favour Abel Issue Raised: Appeal cites multiple reviewer score disagreements. Findings: • No identification of qualifying error. • Reviewer opinion differences are expected in narrative scoring. Determination: Not eligible. 20. Rosemary Villegas (ArtUs Co) Issue Raised: Complex, somewhat unclear appeal referencing Reviewers 2 and 5. Findings: Issues raised are reviewer‑opinion–based. • • No specific panel error or overlooked evidence identified. Determination: Not eligible. 21. Chris Fontanes (Bottle Alley Theatre Company) Issue Raised: Claims three reviewers scored lower and expresses concern about a possible conflict. Findings: • No specific conflict-of-interest is documented. • Scoring difference does not constitute reviewer error. Determination: Not eligible. 22. Caleb De Casper Issue Raised: Claims anti‑gay bias based on reviewer discussion. Findings: • Video review shows reviewer was commenting on target audience reach, not identity. • Another reviewer recognized the value of the applicant’s focus. • All concerns fall under reviewer judgment. Determination: Not eligible. 23. Rakhee Jain Desai Issue Raised: Concerns regarding interpretation of specific communities and partnerships. Findings: • Issues fall entirely under reviewer opinion. • No overlooked evidence or process error noted. Determination: Not eligible. 24. Rocket Cinema / Justin Sherburn Issue Raised: Multiple disagreements with reviewer comments about mission, activities, capacity, etc. Findings: • Reviewers’ comments accurately reflect their interpretations. • No evidence that information was missed or misrepresented. Determination: Not eligible. 25. Alicia Zertuche (Wonderlandia) Issue Raised: Disagreement with feedback on safety training and artistic scope. Findings: • Reviewer noted comments were not tied to score. • Feedback was appropriate within guidelines and did not affect scoring. • No qualifying error cited. Determination: Not eligible. 26. Groundwork Music Project Issue Raised: Belief that final score was calculated incorrectly. Findings: • Staff verified final score; no calculation error. • Remaining issues relate to reviewer opinion on artistic connection. Determination: Not eligible. 27. Painting Pandas Issue Raised: Disagreement with reviewer comments in Activity, Public Work Experience, and Budget. Findings: • Reviewer perspective is not an appealable criterion. • No evidence of misrepresented or overlooked materials. Determination: Not eligible. 28. Anthony Celenza (Luna Music) Issue Raised: Concerns about interpretation of public-facing work, artistic scope, and experience. Findings: • All points relate to reviewer judgment. • No qualifying process errors identified. Determination: Not eligible. 29. Austin Visual Arts Association Issue Raised: Claims panel fatigue since they were last on the review list; confusion over budget comments. Findings: • Video confirms panel discussion was substantive, not rushed. • Reviewers consistently cited vagueness in the budget narrative. • No qualifying error identified. Determination: Not eligible. 30. Sarah Bork Issue Raised: Claims conflict-of-interest due to shared professional/cultural field with a reviewer. Findings: • Sharing an artistic field is not a conflict of interest under Appendix F. • No evidence of a prohibited relationship. • Other concerns reflect reviewer opinion. Determination: Not eligible. 31. Susannah Crowell Issue Raised: Mirrors rationale in Sarah Bork’s appeal; cites similar conflict-of-interest concerns. Findings: • No evidence of conflict under City policy. • No qualifying grounds identified. Determination: Not eligible. 32. Co-Lab Projects Issue Raised: Claims Reviewer 3 scored low in categories related to underrepresented histories, community connection, and budget. Findings: • Scoring reflects reviewer opinion. • No evidence of overlooked or misinterpreted documentation. Determination: Not eligible. 33. Breez Smith Issue Raised: Identifies Reviewer 6’s lower scores in certain categories. Findings: • Reviewer scored lower overall, but within expected variance. • All concerns fall under reviewer judgment. • No qualifying error. Determination: Not eligible. 34. Austin Texas Musicians Issue Raised: Claims certain items reviewers commented on were “not asked” in the application. Findings: Items referenced appear under “Your answer should include” guidance. • • Reviewers acted correctly. • No qualifying error identified. Determination: Not eligible. 35. colectivo IN SITU Issue Raised: Claims a discrepancy between positive reviewer comments and lower scores. Findings: • This is a reviewer judgment appeal. • No process errors identified. Determination: Not eligible. 36. Lodri (Rodrigo Nieves) Issue Raised: Reviewers could not understand appellant’s intent. Findings: • Reflects narrative clarity, not reviewer error. • No qualifying grounds. Determination: Not eligible. 37. Essentials Creative Issue Raised: Claims lead reviewer’s comments constituted panel administration error. Findings: • Comments reflect opinion, not procedural deviation. • No overlooked evidence identified. Determination: Not eligible. 38. Maggie Meador / Summer Break Theatre Issue Raised: Disagreement with reviewer comments across several questions. Findings: • All issues involve narrative interpretation. • No evidence of misapplied scoring or overlooked information. Determination: Not eligible. 39. Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts Issue Raised: Claims bias against service organizations and disputes final score calculation. Findings: • Reviewer perspectives aligned with rubric. • Staff verified score; appellant miscalculated average. • No qualifying grounds. Determination: Not eligible. 40. Ingebrigt Flaten (Sonic Transmissions) Issue Raised: Disputes reviewer opinions in multiple categories. Findings: • All concerns center on reviewer judgment. • No procedural errors identified. Determination: Not eligible. 41. ScriptWorks Issue Raised: Cites specific questions where they disagree with reviewer scoring. Findings: • All noted issues reflect reviewer interpretation according to rubric. • No overlooked or misrepresented information. Determination: Not eligible. 42. Luis Ordaz Issue Raised: Submission included a blank line; possible copy/paste error. Findings: • Applicant errors in the submission process are not eligible appeal grounds. • No qualifying error by staff or reviewers. Determination: Not eligible.  SPANISH‑LANGUAGE APPEALS Spanish‑language appeals were open across all programs (submissions were only for Elevate). All applications and reviewer comments were translated using City‑approved translators, and staff verified language‑access procedures. Across all Spanish‑language appeals, the most common reasons for ineligibility were: • Alleged errors tied to translation, but no evidence that translated content was inaccurate or altered scoring. • Disagreement with reviewer opinions. • Lack of specificity about which reviewer, which score, or what overlooked information impacted scoring. • Claims that helper‑text questions were “not asked,” when in fact these reflect guidance, not separate scored questions. Below are the cleaned, consistent summaries for each Spanish‑language appeal. 1. Ana Esteve Llorens Issue Raised: Concerns about Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 4 scoring lower than others. Findings: • All cited issues are differences in reviewer opinion and scoring judgment. • No qualifying panel administration error, conflict-of-interest, or overlooked evidence is identified. • Appeal does not meet the specificity requirement under Appendix C. Determination: Not eligible for appeal. 2. Maria Luisa Gutiérrez (Casa Costura) Issue Raised: Claims panel administration error and staff error related to Spanish translation; asserts that helper‑text questions were not asked. Findings: • ACME used City‑approved translators for all Spanish materials. • No evidence that translations were inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading. • Helper text is not a separate question; it clarifies how to address the main prompt. • Appeal does not identify any overlooked submitted evidence or scoring misrepresentation. Determination: Not eligible. 3. Surem – Raquel Rivera Issue Raised: Claims panel administration error and staff error related to Spanish translation; cites reviewer errors in Questions 1, 2, and 5. Findings: • Translation performed by City‑approved vendors; no discrepancies found. • Issues raised involve reviewer opinion and interpretation. • No specific process violation or overlooked content identified. Determination: Not eligible. 4. Héctor Ordaz (Itacate Cultural) Issue Raised: Claims panel administration error and staff error regarding Spanish translation; claims reviewer errors but does not specify which or how scoring was affected. Findings: • Translation verified as accurate. • Appeal does not specify which reviewer overlooked specific evidence. • References to “helper text questions not asked” reflect misunderstanding; helper text is guidance, not a separate scored item. • No qualifying error cited. Determination: Not eligible. Summary of Spanish Language Appeals All four Spanish‑language appeals were reviewed with particular attention to translation accuracy and language access compliance. In each case: ‑ • Translations were found to be correct and consistent. • No process deviations occurred. • No overlooked original information was identified. • All concerns centered on reviewer opinion, interpretation, or misunderstandings about helper text — all not appealable under Appendix C. As a result, no Spanish-language appeals qualified to move forward to the Appeals Working Group for scoring‑related reconsideration.