## 5 Results  
In the initial phase of the created evaluation system testing, several simulations were carried out to confirm the appropriateness of the adopted evaluation criteria. After the first tests, however, it became clear that it was necessary to correct them because the obtained grades were too high in relation to the errors made. During subsequent tests, the criteria were gradually adjusted so that the obtained grades matched those given by the expert--an experienced instructor. This stage showed how difficult and time-consuming it is to adjust the criteria and link them together in such a way that more complex conditions are met. It is very important when working on an automatic evaluation worksheet to repeatedly and multidimensionally check the criteria used and their weights. The instructor must set the goal of the exercise and the level, demonstrate imagination, determine the number of correct solutions, and allow deviations from the assumptions. This is because navigation is an open process, dynamically changing in time, in which the goal is clearly defined, although there are often several ways leading to it. All these aspects should be considered when preparing an automated assessment. Linking conditions in the SEA program can take place on several levels [22]. The SEA program behavior is closely related to how deeply and precisely the navigational situation will be analyzed, how it will be described using criteria, and how sophisticated a structure will be created to illustrate many layers of the problem. As mentioned in the paper, this is an extremely difficult task for instructors. At the same time, it should be emphasized that after they perform this time-consuming and complicated activity of preparing the sheet for evaluation, they will receive great support in the evaluation process, which is objective information in the form of a printed report. This document clearly indicates the errors made during the simulation. The evaluation made is concrete and not burdened by subjectivity and other elements that reduce its validity. Based on the final version of the criteria sheet, further simulations were carried out with the SEA evaluation program activated. An example of the implementation of the exercise with own ships ALPHA and BRAVO is shown in Figure 7 (own ships CHARLIE and DELTA did not participate in the exercise). The location and adopted names of the navigation bridges in the simulator are shown in Figure 1. An example of the final report obtained for the BRAVO vessel is shown in Figure 8.  
The SEA program assessed the simulation results for the ALPHA ship very well (rating of 4.7). She picked up only two penalty points for getting too close to the \(m/v\) SPRING during the final phase of the exercise. The ships passed each other safely. The program recorded a distance less than 1 NM astern of the m/v SPRING. It is worth considering later if weights should be differentiated in the situation of approaching ships from the bow and from the stern direction. Ship BRAVO changed course very efficiently to starboard to pass the astern of m/v SPRING and m/v LAKE ONTARIO. However, the SEA program recorded criteria overrun against the ship MONROVIA (two penalty points). The anticollision maneuver to avoid a dangerous situation was executed at neither 4 NM nor 3 NM to MONROVIA. The recorded CPA in this situation was less than 1 NM. BRAVO was also rated 4.7 (very good). Figure 7: Final situation at the end of the simulation (for ships ALPHA and BRAVO). During one of the next simulations, the student operating the CHARLIE ship received a negative grade (2.00). The program counted the maximum number of penalty points (14) for not acquiring all targets. The correct distances and CPAs were also not respected. Exceeding these criteria resulted in another penalty point. The exercise was not passed. The note indicates the student's lack of competence at the given level of training.