Have you guys struggled with the foundation of Mech 323's peer evaluation? Looking at it from a granular level I found that there's no smart way to peer review your team prior to the finalized submission:
If you have time to peer review your team before the submission, it is evident that your team is functional enough to give you time to complete a peer review and thus your group may not need a "peer review". Furthermore, if your group is in need of a peer review and you have time to complete it, chances are you're the problem. Finally, if you're the group member completing the majority of the work and submitting the phase reports against a very harsh set of delayed document mark repercussions, it isn't in your best interest to further delay your submission to complete a peer review that has no documented benefit or explanation as to why it exists.
If any of you struggled with the ridiculous criteria surrounding Mech's 323 peer review and found that it hindered you from submitting both valuable and necessary feedback about your group, sign the following petition!