Here is some generic feedback given to previous IRM students after assessing their project analyses. Be sure to take these points into account when preparing your project analysis.
Make sure your hypotheses or claims are explicitly stated and not just left implicit.
Claims should be concrete and crisp, not vague or ambiguous.
Where possible, include reasons why you expect your claims to be true, e.g., 'because' clauses.
Avoid throw-away remarks that might be interpreted as claims, but which you don't seriously intend to evaluate.
Claims/hypotheses are not the same as aims, objectives or contributions. They are statements whose truth can be determined by evaluation.
It must be realistic to evaluate these claims effectively within the timescale of your project period. If this is not possible, then cut back the claims to something that can be evaluated.
Make it clear how any data needed in your evaluation will be collected and/or classified, and show that these collection and classification processes are realistic given your time constraints.
Related work (in contrast to a literature survey) is part of the evaluation. It should be used to help establish one or more of your claims, e.g. that your work is superior in some respect to rival work.
Always spell check anything you submit. Nowadays, this is cheap and simple, and not to do it is an insult to your readers. Redo the check if you edit the original draft.