Validation criteria Sample Clauses

Validation criteria. Validation criteria have been defined in the deliverable D7.1. We summarize hereafter the criteria validated during the first cycle.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Validation criteria. Start, fail and completion metrics – We measure these values for any given game. For every start event, we see whether the player achieved or failed their goals. This information will be valuable to the game developers to help adjust difficulty as well as to therapists who might adjust the targets for their patients. At WP6, we have been discussing ways to validate each activity within the VR-HABIT platform. This is traditionally done through play testing in focus groups but this has 2 drawbacks – it is not accurate and it might not even be feasible in our domain due to the conditions of our patients. The conclusion we came up with is that each activity will be validated with the same conditions to understand how much it helps patients get better in their needs when compared to traditional approaches. This is very important in order to develop trust within the community. To achieve this, we decided to build a flexible system that empowers the living labs to define the expected outcomes by allowing them to fine tune properties for each given task at a global level as well as at a personal level for each patient. These properties include the following:
Sample 1

Related to Validation criteria

  • Selection Criteria Each Contract is secured by a new or used Motorcycle. No Contract has a Contract Rate less than 1.00%. Each Contract amortizes the amount financed over an original term no greater than 84 months (excluding periods of deferral of first payment). Each Contract has a Principal Balance of at least $500.00 as of the Cutoff Date.

  • Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)

  • Qualification Criteria The College may offer or an employee may request an early retirement incentive provided the employee meets the following qualifications:

  • Design Criteria The Engineer shall develop the roadway design criteria based on the controlling factors specified by the State (i.e. 4R, 3R, 2R, or special facilities), by use of the funding categories, design speed, functional classification, roadway class and any other set criteria as set forth in PS&E Preparation Manual, Roadway Design Manual, Bridge Design Manual, Hydraulic Design Manual, and other deemed necessary State approved manuals. In addition, the Engineer shall prepare the Design Summary Report (DSR) and submit it electronically. The Engineer shall obtain written concurrence from the State prior to proceeding with a design if any questions arise during the design process regarding the applicability of State’s design criteria.

  • Desirable Selection Criteria 1. Post registration qualification in the area of specialty or evidence of significant progression towards one.

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Drug Testing (A) The state and the PBA agree to drug testing of employees in accordance with section 112.0455, F.S., the Drug-Free Workplace Act.

  • Laboratory Testing All laboratories selected by UPS Freight for analyzing Controlled Substances Testing will be HHS certified.

  • Power Factor Design Criteria Developer shall design the Large Generating Facility to maintain an effective power delivery at demonstrated maximum net capability at the Point of Interconnection at a power factor within the range established by the Connecting Transmission Owner on a comparable basis, until NYISO has established different requirements that apply to all generators in the New York Control Area on a comparable basis. The Developer shall design and maintain the plant auxiliary systems to operate safely throughout the entire real and reactive power design range. The Connecting Transmission Owner shall not unreasonably restrict or condition the reactive power production or absorption of the Large Generating Facility in accordance with Good Utility Practice.

  • Criteria (1) Annual Evaluation Criteria. All performance evaluations shall be based upon assigned duties, and shall carefully consider the nature of the assignment in terms, where applicable, of:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.