>... the later rounds are likely to have amplified errors as fewer and fewer measurements are responsible for allocating a larger and larger percentage of the communities budget. 

Not necessarily true. In the later rounds there will be fewer measurements but higher quality instruments. 

- So, in later rounds there is an _increase_ in error due to fewer measurements and a _decrease_ in error due to higher quality instruments. Those are two mutually competing factors. Also, self-ranking in the later rounds would tend to be detrimental to the positive effect of the second factor. Super interesting dynamics.
-	What about larger communities? A 1000 members community could justify a round 3, a 10K members community a round 4. Also, because Respect is allocated according to averages, those higher level rounds could take on larger time intervals. For example, once every month or every trimester, etc. Think about annual round 5 tournament of respect. Lol!


- As in all complex systems, noise at every level can be reduced through the incorporation of adequate feedback mechanisms. Not something that can be implemented now but super worth the effort exploring. 


-	Why the numbers 5 and 6 in the way average is calculated, why not 11 and 12 or something else?

Aside these comments, it looks like a great deal of effort and thought put into this addendum. It does feel like a significant experience/feedback based improvement. Great work guys. 

I'd say let's put it to test!