I felt it was a well-written report.
＞The 14 previous awards, including the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry's and the Minister of Culture's awards, showed that the criterion for evaluation was novelty rather than continuity and subsequent improvement, which are considered successful examples, or quality assurance.
I guess that's the limit of what we've done to date. It is easy to document the reason for the award if there is something new as the subject of the award, and it will also attract the attention of the judges, but the down-to-earth aspect of the award is often not very appealing.
As for ARCS-V, as I mentioned in Suzuki (2010) "At the End", it's still in its infancy and I'm still at the stage where I'm taking a wait-and-see stage myself to see if it's appropriate to jump on board and say "the ARCS model is old, let's switch to the new ARCS-V model". I feel it's an unknown quantity as to which one will survive (for the time being I will continue to use the ARCS model).