NoBarriers

Profiles for wheelchair users, pram pushers and seniors change the verdict per person, missing data stays unknown rather than accessible, and conflicts show every version with no winner. The behaviour is verified in real code, which supports the two 9s over member C's 8.

The live demo responds and the accessibility effort is real, but the required video is missing, no test files were measured, and known WCAG gaps remain, such as the obscured Mapbox attribution on mobile. The median 7 sits between A's generous 8 and C's stricter 6.

Each datum carries source, date and a five-state confidence, demo data is flagged, and real OSM ingestion exists in the code. Krakow city open data is only planned and disruptions come from sample fixtures, and C's claim that the demo likely runs in mock mode cannot be verified from the evidence, so the council sides with the members who confirmed real ingestion in code.

Ingestion sits behind adapters with a CityConfig entry and a written runbook, so adding a city is mostly a configuration task. The single-city operation and missing city switcher, noted independently by A and C, justify the median 8 below B's 9.

Three revenue streams and a low hosting cost are outlined but no concrete prices or revenue projections appear anywhere. The median 6 fits: A's 5 understates the defined streams while C's 7 is generous for rough estimates.