My scoring was extremely congruent with the group's scoring; the order of my scores and the order of the average scores differed by only one grant I gave a five which moved over two sixes. Every other panelist had more variation.
I gave the singularly lowest score three times and the singularly highest score twice. This seems reasonable. However only nine grants recieved a singularly high score, and nine a singularly low score, as there was much agreement among the panelists. (One grant received both. I was low on that one.)
One grant received a maximum score based on the panelist proclivities described above. No grants received a minimum score.
Going into the panel process I had ranked grants on a scale including half-points in order to give me room to move scores based on panel discussion. Of ten grants I gave half-point scores to, I moved down half a point based on panelist input eight times and up twice. I also moved grants with whole-number preliminary scores down a full point three times based on panelist input.
Washington County - and particularly the St. Croix Valley - got an exceptional number of high scores both from me and from the panelists at large. Of five grants which recieved a 5-point average or higher, three were in the St. Croix Valley, and another was tied for sixth.
I'm reasonably content with the way the panel went.