## 3 Results  
As previously mentioned, the deployment of this tool was carried out on the Sepolia testnet. This network provides support for the necessary tests with nearly no cost and provides an appropriate environment to check if the performance achieved ensures its correct operation and meets the established goals.  
The proposed model is tested on a certain challenge that was declared suitable for all the participants in the test. This decision was taken after the characterization of all participants using the model presented in this paper and the evaluation of the features and requirements of the selected challenge. Once the challenge is set, the Planning challenge in this testing environment, the progress of the participants in the challenge can be recorded and processed. This progress is automatically verified by the SC designed for this purpose, granting the corresponding reward to the user when appropriate. In this case, the user receives a corresponding amount of Sepolia ETH in their account. This information can be consulted on the platform and with external tools, such as Metamask (Figures 11 and 12), and it is available for everybody on the Sepolia net.  
As previously stated, the test group consisted of 71 end users. This tool was introduced to them for validation by means of the SUS. The aggregated scores obtained from this survey are shown in Table 1.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Adjective** & **Count** & **Mean SUS Score** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline “Worst imaginable” & 0 & - & - \\ “Poor” & 2 & 47.50 & 0.00 \\ “Ok” & 8 & 64.38 & 5.13 \\ “Good” & 27 & 76.57 & 2.51 \\ “Excellent” & 6 & 82.50 & 0.00 \\ “Best imaginable” & 28 & 90.80 & 5.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Final scores obtained on the SUS as aggregated values.  
Figure 11: Transaction rewards received by one user after completing the challenge.  
Once the results from each individual user were calculated as the sum of each answer using the criteria mentioned in previous sections, the total ratings were grouped following the adjective categories [42]. As shown in Table 1, two users rated it as \"Poor\", which represents 2.8% of the ratings; eight users rated it with a score corresponding to \"Ok\", which represents 11.3% of the responses; 27 users gave it a \"Good\" rating, which represents 38%; six users considered it \"Excellent\", which represents 8.5% of the responses; and 28 of the 71 users rated it as \"Best imaginable\", which represents 39.4% of the scores. In none of the cases did the users rate the presented tool as \"Worst imaginable\".  
In aggregate terms, the presented tool obtained an average rating of 80.49 \(\pm\) 11.15 points (mean \(\pm\) SD) on the SUS, with a maximum of 100 points and a minimum of 47.5 points. This rating situates it within the \"Good' category, according to the adopted criterion. It is just an average of 0.31 points away from achieving the 'Excellent' score. In addition to these descriptive data, [PERSON]'s Alpha test was performed to check the internal consistency of the responses, obtaining a value of 0.75, which indicates good internal consistency. Good internal consistency is considered with values between 0.7 and 0.9. Values above 0.95 indicate redundancy in the test [43].