@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@
 from app.services.ai.simple_workflows.prompts.evaluation_grok import (
     EVALUATION_GROK_SYSTEM_PROMPT,
     EVALUATION_GROK_USER_PROMPT_TEMPLATE,
-    NETWORK_SCHOOL_REFERENCE_TEXT,
 )
 
 logger = configure_logger(__name__)
@@ -432,11 +431,10 @@ def _fetch_past_proposals_context(
     }
 
     dao_past_proposals_stats_for_evaluation = {
-        "ALL": len(sorted_dao_past_proposals),
-        "DRAFT": len(dao_past_proposals_categorized["DRAFT"]),
-        "PENDING": len(dao_past_proposals_categorized["PENDING"]),
-        "DEPLOYED": len(dao_past_proposals_categorized["DEPLOYED"]),
-        "FAILED": len(dao_past_proposals_categorized["FAILED"]),
+        "TOTAL_ALL_TIME": len(sorted_dao_past_proposals),
+        "NOT_SUBMITTED_ONCHAIN": len(dao_past_proposals_categorized["DRAFT"]),
+        "TRANSACTION_FAILED": len(dao_past_proposals_categorized["FAILED"]),
+        "SUBMITTED_ONCHAIN_FOR_EVAL": len(dao_past_proposals_categorized["DEPLOYED"]),
     }
 
     # Limit drafts to last 20
@@ -640,7 +638,6 @@ async def evaluate_proposal_openrouter(
             dao_draft_proposals_for_evaluation=dao_draft_proposals_for_evaluation or "",
             dao_deployed_proposals_for_evaluation=dao_deployed_proposals_for_evaluation
             or "",
-            network_school_reference_text=NETWORK_SCHOOL_REFERENCE_TEXT,
         )
 
         # build user content with text and media
 
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 - Require specific, cited evidence from the proposal. Vague claims = low scores/rejection.
 - Check for contradictions with provided charter or current order; penalize heavily and reject if present.
 - Borderline cases: Reject unless strong evidence shows clear alignment.
-- Favor using your tools to verify profiles, quotes, links, and claims.
+- Always use your tools to verify profiles, quotes, links, and claims.
 
 EVALUATION PROCESS
 
@@ -28,9 +28,9 @@
 
 2. SCORING (Only if all checks pass; uses 0-100 scale)
    - Current Order Alignment (20%): Direct advancement of order with unique, high-quality entry. 90-100: Exceptional; 80-89: Strong; 75-79: Adequate; <75: Weak → Reject.
-   - Mission Alignment (20%): Accelerates technocapital with prosperity impact. 90-100: Concrete; <80: Vague/contradictory → Reject.
-   - Value Contribution (20%): Exceeds basics with potent, insightful content (deep technocapital understanding, viral humor). 90-100: Exceptional (memetic impact, cited examples); <80: Basic or superficial → Reject.
-   - Values Alignment (10%): Demonstrates technocapitalism beliefs. 90-100: Specific examples; <75: Generic/contradictory → Reject.
+   - Mission Alignment (20%): Follows the AIBTC mission and order with prosperity impact. 90-100: Concrete; <80: Vague/contradictory → Reject.
+   - Value Contribution (20%): Exceeds basics with potent, insightful content (deep understanding, viral humor). 90-100: Exceptional (memetic impact, cited examples); <80: Basic or superficial → Reject.
+   - Values Alignment (10%): Demonstrates aligned beliefs. 90-100: Specific examples; <75: Generic/contradictory → Reject.
    - Clarity & Execution (10%): Well-structured, professional, and tasteful. 90-100: Exceptional (potent, visually compelling); 80-89: Strong; <80: Lacks taste or polish → Reject. Cite image analysis for deductions.
    - Safety & Compliance (10%): Adherence to policies. 90-100: Perfect; <90: Concerns → Reject.
    - Growth Potential (10%): Attracts contributors via inspiring potency (shareable, thought-provoking). 90-100: Highly viral; <80: Mediocre example → Reject.
@@ -41,13 +41,13 @@
    - H2: Mission Alignment <80
    - H3: Safety & Compliance <90
    - H4: Value Contribution <80
-   - H5: Any contradiction with mission/values/community info
-   - H6: Clarity & Execution <85
-   - H7: Growth Potential <85
+   - H5: Clarity & Execution <80
+   - H6: Growth Potential <80
+   - H7: Any contradiction with mission/values/community info
    - H8: Lacks potency (e.g., generic phrasing without deep insight)
    On failure: Keep scores, list failed caps in "failed" array with reasons.
 
-4. FINAL SCORE: Weighted sum, rounded to integer. (Formula unchanged from original.)
+4. FINAL SCORE: Weighted sum, rounded to integer.
 
 5. CONFIDENCE (0.0-1.0): Start at 1.0; subtract for vagueness (-0.05-0.15), incompleteness (-0.05-0.10), poor clarity (-0.05-0.10), verification issues (-0.05-0.15). Subtract -0.15 for lack of potency/taste (e.g., superficial phrases); -0.10 for poor understanding. <0.70 → Reject (add "LOW_CONFIDENCE" to failed).
 
@@ -104,16 +104,16 @@
 PROPOSAL CONTENT:
 {proposal_content_for_evaluation}
 
-X POST CONTEXT:
+RELATED X POST:
 {tweet_info_for_evaluation}
 
-X AUTHOR CONTEXT:
+X AUTHOR:
 {tweet_author_info_for_evaluation}
 
-X QUOTED POST CONTEXT:
+X QUOTED POST:
 {quote_tweet_info_for_evaluation}
 
-X REPLY TWEET CONTEXT:
+X REPLY TWEET:
 {reply_tweet_info_for_evaluation}
 
 DAO PROPOSAL STATS:
@@ -128,9 +128,6 @@
 LAST 100 DEPLOYED DAO PROPOSALS:
 {dao_deployed_proposals_for_evaluation}
 
-NETWORK SCHOOL REFERENCE:
-{network_school_reference_text}
-
 Output the evaluation as a JSON object, strictly following the system guidelines."""
 
 # added 2025/11/12 specific to AIBTC-NS1 ORDER