diff --git a/oss2018/content/04-results.tex b/oss2018/content/04-results.tex
index b57c485..d0a6ba5 100644
--- a/oss2018/content/04-results.tex
+++ b/oss2018/content/04-results.tex
@@ -1,54 +1,78 @@
 \section{Results}
 \label{sec:results}
 
-The case study had two phases according to the project management model. In the
-second phase (about one year of execution), several practices have been applied
-to harmonize the cultural and organizational divergences of the institutions
-involved.  At the end of the project, an empirical model of management and
-development process was stabilized by aligning experiences from the open source
-ecosystem, academic research, and bureaucracies needed by the government. In
-this section, we present by context the practices adopted in this second phase
-and show the benefits generated by its deployment.
-
-\subsection{Project management and communication on the developing platform
-itself}
-
-After nine months of project activities, the first version of new SPB Portal
-was released. From this point, we started to migrate the management and
-communication interactions to the platform under development. In short, Wiki
-feature was used for meeting logging, defining goals, sprint planning, and
-documentation of deployment processes and administration resources guide. Issue
-tracker was used for discussing requirements, monitoring the features under
-development, registering changes, and validating functionalities delivered.
-Finally, the whole team used the Mailing list to defining schedules of meetings and
-deliveries and also to the collaborative definition of requirements.
+We divided the case study into two phases, according to the traceability of the
+project management activities. We consider the first phase, between January
+2014 and March 2015, as non-traceable. In this period, only UnB managed the
+development activities. The inter-institutional monitoring of the project was
+reduced to the definition of strategic goals in meetings between coordinators,
+and the communication between government and academia was dispersed in private
+channels, such as professional e-mails, personal meetings, and telephone calls.
+Because of this, the quantitative data found for this period are inconclusive or
+have little expressiveness, and we did not examine them.
+
+The second phase, from April 2015 to the end of the project (June 2016), has a
+more considerable wealth of data. Much of the management and communication
+activities were recorded and published on online channels and tools. During
+this period, several open source practices were applied to the development
+process to harmonize the cultural and organizational divergences of the
+institutions involved. At the end of the project, an empirical model of
+communication and management was built using experiments in free software
+ecosystems to cater to government bureaucracies.
+
+In this section, we list the macro-decisions taken intuitively during the
+project and the practices that made these decisions concrete. We use data
+collected from the main repository to map best practices and, with the
+respondents' answers, we analyzed how each decision benefited the project
+collaboration.
+
+\subsection{Use of system under development to develop the system itself}
+
+The first version of the new SPB portal was released in production nine months
+after the project beginning. Due to the platform features for software
+development and social network, the UnB coordinators decided to use the system
+under construction to develop the system itself. Gradually, in addition to
+development activities, government and academia migrated the project management
+and communication between teams to the portal environment. In short, the wiki
+feature was used for logging meetings, defining goals, planning sprints,
+documenting deployment procedures and user guides. The issue tracker was used
+for discussing requirements, monitoring features under development, requesting
+and recording changes, and validating the delivered funcionalities. Finally, the
+mailing list was used by the entire team for collaboratively constructing
+requirements, defining schedules, and scheduling meetings between institutions.
 
 Our surveys report Mailing list (100\%) and Issue Tracker (62.5\%) as the main
-means of interaction between senior developers and undergraduates. Developers
+means of interaction between senior developers and interns. Developers
 and MPOG staff also interacted mostly via Mailing List (87.5\%) and Issue
-tracker (50\%).  According to research findings, this movement made
-\textbf{communication more transparent and efficient}. An MPOG IT analyst said
-that the \textit{``Communicating well goes far beyond the speed, it is someone
-being able to communicate to everyone everything that is happening in the
-project. We did not use emails. We use more mailing list and avoid e-mails. It
-helped a lot because everything was public and did not pollute our mailbox. You
-wanted to know something, could go there and look at what was happening''}.
-
-Migrating to SPB platform also provided an \textbf{easier monitoring and
-increase interactions between the development team and public servants by
-coordinators}. As shown by collected data, in the last 15 months of the
-project, the issues have 59 different authors (8 from MPOG staff) and
-commented by 64 different users (9 from MPOG staff and users).  Considering
-issues with a higher level of interaction those that have 10 or more comments, in
-a set of 102 issues, MPOG staff authored 43 issues (which represents 42\% of
-these most active issues). An MPOG analyst highlighted that \textit{``there was
+tracker (50\%).  According to answers, this movement made the
+\textbf{communication more transparent and efficient}. An MPOG analyst said
+that \textit{``Communicating well goes far beyond the speed. It means enabling
+someone to tell everyone about everything that is happening in the project. We
+did not use emails, we use more mailing list and avoid emails. This usage helped
+us a lot because everything was public and did not pollute our email box. So,
+when you wanted to know something, you could access the SPB list to see
+everything that was happening''}.
+
+Migration to the SPB platform also \textbf{easied coordinator monitoring
+activities and increased interactions between developers and public servants}.
+The data collected from the repository evidence the frequent use of the platform
+by the academic team and the government team. In the last 15 months of the
+project, the main project issues were opened by 59 different authors, 8 of them
+MPOG agents. These issues received comments from 64 distinct users, 9 of them
+from MPOG. When we consider the issues with much interaction, those who had ten
+comments or more, we realized that the government team also felt more
+comfortable using the tool to interact directly with the development team. In a
+set of 102 issues with much interaction, MPOG staff created 43 of them (this
+represents 42\% of the most active issues). An MPOG analyst highlighted that \textit{``there was
 a lot of evolution, a lot of communication via Gitlab''}.  This interaction
-also led MPOG staff to \textbf{trust developed code}: \textit{``Everything was
+also led MPOG staff to \textbf{trust in developed code}: \textit{``Everything was
 validated, we tested the features and we developed the project inside the
 platform so that the feature was validated in the development of the software
 itself. From the moment we installed it and began to use it for development,
 this validation was constant. We felt confident in the features''}.
 
+%Morri aqui (Melissa)
+
 One of the main concerns of traditional approaches is meticulous documentation of
 the software designed and the development steps. With this aforementioned
 decision, we could meet this government demand without bureaucracies and
@@ -59,7 +83,7 @@ documented in the e-mails and also in the portal itself. At any moment we can
 go there and see how it worked, how someone did something. We can recover those
 good points''}.
 
-\subsection{Bringing together government staff and development team}
+\subsection{Bring together government staff and development team}
 
 The MPOG analysts observed communication noise in the dialogue between them and
 their superiors and in dialogues with the development team,
--
libgit2 0.21.2