diff --git a/evaluations/sarp_1_niklasp.md b/evaluations/sarp_1_niklasp.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..4103579677
--- /dev/null
+++ b/evaluations/sarp_1_niklasp.md
@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
+# Evaluation
+
+- **Status:** In Progress
+- **Application Document:**
+ https://github.com/w3f/Grants-Program/blob/master/applications/sarp-basic-functionality.md
+- **Milestone:**
+ [1](https://github.com/w3f/Grant-Milestone-Delivery/blob/70250f0f8d90c3143294e1ec7a25c0c89133a481/deliveries/sarp-basic-functionality-milestone-1.md)
+- **Kusama Identity:**
+ [DT7kRjGFvRKxGSx5CPUCA1pazj6gzJ6Db11xmkX4yYSNK7m](https://sub.id/5CwW67PPdZQQCcdWJVaRJCepSQSrtKUumDAGa7UZbBKwd9R2)
+- **Previously successfully merged evaluation:** None yet
+
+| Number | Deliverable | Accepted | Link | Evaluation Notes |
+| ------ | ------------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| 0a. | License | | [MIRAI MIT License](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/8afab5db34fb7330789e3765c3adf460ed72ed05/LICENSE) | MIT license file for the MIRAI package is provided in a forked repo. |
+| 0b. | User Documentation | | [Proof of Concept: Tag Analysis on Origin](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/pallet_template/README.md) -- [Proof of Concept: Tag Analysis for validation of unsigned transactions](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/tree/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/offchain-worker) | See [User Documentation Feedback](#user-documentation-feedback). _Spec: "We will provide a basic tutorial that explains how to use the tool on a substrate pallet."_ |
+| 0c. | Testing and Testing Guide | | see 0b. | The User Documentation contains incomplete guides to running the supplied Prototype Code. _Spec: "A first set of tests will be provided, together with a testing guide, that describes how to run them."_ |
+| 1. | Prototype Code | | [origin](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/pallet_template/), [unsigned transaction](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/offchain-worker/) | Prototype code was submitted, that approaches the two stated vulnerabilty classes. See [Prototype Code Feedback](#prototype-code-feedback) for open issues / questions. _Spec: "Prototype code to approach the above two stated vulnerability classes."_ |
+| 2. | Documentation | | [Tag Analysis on Substrate Pallets](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/README.md) | See [Documentation Feedback](#documentation-feedback). _Spec: "Technical documentation: a) describing the approach we plan to implement in milestone 2, incl. its limitations. b) with (interesting) examples of the vulnerability classes."_ |
+| 3. | Engagement | | [Github Comment](https://github.com/w3f/Grants-Program/pull/1706#issuecomment-1564312572) | See [Engagement Feedback](#engagement-feedback). _Spec: "Engage with teams at Web3 Foundation and Parity for prioritization._ |
+
+## General Notes
+
+Two code prototype examples alongside its documentation were submitted by the
+grantee that address the two vulnerability classes: _Incorrect Origin_ and
+_Unsigned Transaction_. Also a brief research documentation was submitted.
+
+Based on my evaluation, you can improve the submitted documentation and
+engagement (see below). I would like to see more progress in solving the major
+issues with MIRAI as stated in your
+[Findings](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/README.md#findings)
+and Open Issues
+[1](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/pallet_template/README.md#open-issues),
+[2](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/offchain-worker/README.md#open-issues)
+before accepting the deliverable. As I understand your granted application, the
+overall idea was to find if MIRAI is a suitable tool for statically analysing
+substrate code. By providing more details (with code examples and error outputs)
+it would be easier to evualuate your findings.
+
+Thus I have to reject this delivery at its current state but will continue the
+evaluation / accept the delivery when the points stated below are resolved /
+commented on.
+
+_Note that this evaluation is not binding since I do not currently work for the
+Web3Foundation. The w3f grants team can still accept your delivery in its
+current state._
+
+## Prototype Code Feedback
+
+The applicants [forked the MIRIA repository](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI). I am
+evaluating the `Milestone1_Research` branch. The code has relevant comments and
+is easy to understand. For existing comments / questions, see below.
+
+### Running the Prototype Code
+
+1. Install MIRAI as per
+ [Instructions](https://github.com/facebookexperimental/MIRAI/blob/main/documentation/InstallationGuide.md) -
+ _this is documented_
+1. clone the forked repo (where the substrate-examples folder contains the
+ pallet template) `git clone https://github.com/scs/MIRAI.git` - _not
+ documented_
+1. Checkout the correct branch (linked from the documentation)
+ `git checkout Milestone1_Research` - _this step is not documented. At the
+ time of evaluation there is an
+ [open PR to `main`](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/pull/1) that would merge the
+ `pallet_template`/ Tag Analysis part of the example._
+1. Then I tested both supplied static analysis examples:
+
+### Origin Check
+
+- `cd substrate-examples/pallet_template` and then run `cargo mirai`
+- Altering the two lines of code works as described in the documentation and
+ outputs a warning when the `ensure_signed` is used instead of the
+ `sarp_ensure_signed`.
+
+➡️ The supplied example is adding the tags in a correct way, as far as I can
+tell, but differs from the vulnarability class raised in the RFP. The provided
+code is testing
+[`ensure_signed`](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/pallet_template/src/lib.rs#L135)
+instead of additionally testing
+[`ensure_origin`](https://github.com/bhargavbh/MIRAI/blob/5646e7e2775f1b59bed74285ab1c0a8397218fc5/substrate_examples/incorrect-origin/wrong-origin.rs#L49)
+is called correctly. I understand, that tag analysis is also verified to work in
+the code submitted, but is there a reason why you are testing `ensure_signed` is
+called instead? Does it have to do with your Finding #1 that states: "Certain
+pieces of substrate code lead to crashes of MIRAI."
+
+➡️ The output from running `cargo mirai` is not very descriptive,
+[a descriptive message can be added to the `precondition!` macro](https://github.com/facebookexperimental/MIRAI/blob/957af25ce6cc109093cec369c70fe90a1e2544f9/annotations/src/lib.rs#L625).
+
+### Offchain Worker / Unsigned Transaction Validation
+
+- `cd substrate-examples/offchain_worker` and then run `cargo mirai`
+- Running the above results in the same warning as
+ [shown in the documentation](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/raw/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/offchain-worker/mirai-warning.png).
+- [Uncommenting the lines in `lib.rs` as stated](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/offchain-worker/src/lib.rs#L355)
+ omits the warning
+- In `substrate-examples/offchain-worker/src/lib.rs` you have the following
+ lines.
+
+ ```rust
+ // For some reason MIRAI crashes with this code
+ /*let avg_price = Self::average_price()
+ .map(|price| if &price > new_price { price - new_price } else { new_price - price })
+ .unwrap_or(0);*/
+ let avg_price = 0;
+ ```
+
+ I tried uncommenting the commented `avg_price` definition and `cargo mirai`
+ did not "crash" but did not output the expected warning. Before moving on it
+ would be fundamental to understand why that happens and I would not
+ [postpone it to the next grant](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/tree/Milestone1_Research/substrate-examples#next-steps).
+ You picked two vulnerability classes to demonstrate the possibilities to move
+ on with MIRAI. I would then expect that the research goes as deep as needed to
+ answer the above (at least for the classes you picked).
+
+### Repository Structure
+
+- It would be more clear for me if the work was in its own repository to follow
+ the development easier and separate concerns of the testing tool from the
+ development of MIRAI (at least at the current stage until maintainers give
+ their go to merge to MIRAI).
+
+- In MIRAI as well as
+ [@bhargavbh fork](https://github.com/bhargavbh/MIRAI/tree/main/substrate_examples),
+ example folders are named by functionality / vulnarability class. In the
+ milestone 1 fork, your naming convention differs. It would be clearer to stick
+ the the former in my opinion.
+
+## User Documentation Feedback
+
+- The instructions on running the code are missing some parts, see
+ [Running the Prototype Code](#running-the-prototype-code)
+
+- The documentation is repetitve in both files in the Beginning ('##Running')
+ submitted as "User Documentation". An ideal solution would have a
+ documentation in one file, stating how to run the examples step by step.
+
+## Documentation Feedback
+
+The documentation is short of detail but covers the aspects stated in the
+application.
+
+### Research / Findings
+
+- [@bhargavbh mentioned](https://github.com/w3f/Grants-Program/pull/1706#issuecomment-1535936716)
+ that it would be relevant to "document interesting vulnarability classes
+ (which you may find in research phase)". The Documentation Delivery
+ specification is: "b) with (interesting) examples of the vulnerability
+ classes." I cannot find that in the M1 delivery, where the focus is only on
+ the "incorrect origin" and "unsigned transaction" vulnerability classes. The
+ [RFP](https://github.com/w3f/Grants-Program/blob/master/docs/RFPs/Open/Static-Analysis-for-Runtime-Pallets.md#project-description-page_facing_up)
+ mentions 3 more classes, the RFP repo has a
+ [description and example for the "arithmetic-overflow" vulnarability class](https://github.com/bhargavbh/MIRAI/tree/main/substrate_examples/arithmetic-overflow)
+ and I assume more could be found in engaging with pallet developers.
+
+- You
+ [identified several **major** issues with MIRAI + substrate](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/tree/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples#findings)):
+
+ 1. crashes and timeouts
+ 2. invasiveness on code (=> adoption is hard)
+ 3. [problem with nesting `precondition!` and `verify!`](https://github.com/scs/MIRAI/blob/db8104d6bba5224ad445502ec46166288349e60c/substrate-examples/pallet_template/README.md#open-issues)
+
+ To me, those issues sound severe. Are you confident that you will be able to
+ fix them in a next step? What is your approach?
+
+In general, I would welcome a more detailed description of the errors / crashes
+you got with MIRAI, so others can evaluate on their systems and build upon your
+work and findings with MIRAI.
+
+## Engagement Feedback
+
+The linked github comment is hidden inside the w3f grants repository. I would
+consider a post in the polkadot forum or some other way to reach pallet
+developers directly in order to find priorities / new vulnerability classes.