The six user reviews are all about the same encounter (five “recommended” and one “not recommended”). The only quantitative rating that appears in the text is the *physical‑appearance* score, which is given as 8/10 in every review. All other categories (mouth, sex, location) are expressed in *yes/no* language and have no numerical score. Below is a breakdown of the 0 % / 100 % counts and the average of the remaining (non‑binary) values for each category. | Category | 0 % reviews | 100 % reviews | Average of the rest (non‑binary) | |-------------------|-------------|---------------|-----------------------------------| | Physical appearance | 0 | 0 | 80 % (all 8 / 10 → 80 %) | | Mouth | 0 | 5 | N/A (all “yes”) | | Sex | 0 | 5 | N/A (all “yes”) | | Location | 0 | 5 | N/A (all “yes”) | **Average for each category** - Physical appearance: **80 %** - Mouth: **100 %** (every review is a “yes”) - Sex: **100 %** - Location: **100 %** **Overall averages across all categories** * *Overall 50 %‑category average*: Only the Physical‑Appearance category contributes a non‑binary value (80 %). Thus the overall 50 % average is **80 %**. * *Overall 100 %‑category average*: Out of the 20 individual‑category observations (5 reviews × 4 categories) 15 are 100 % (mouth, sex, location) and 5 are not (physical appearance). The overall average of 100 % values is therefore **75 %**. --- **Assumptions & Notes** 1. Physical‑appearance ratings were converted from a 0‑10 scale to a percentage (8 / 10 = 80 %). 2. The mouth, sex, and location categories are treated as binary because the reviews only provide “yes/no” language. 3. If a category has no non‑binary entries (as in mouth, sex, location) the “average of the rest” is reported as N/A. 4. All calculations are unweighted by review weight because the five “recommended” reviews are considered equally relevant. Feel free to let me know if you’d like the figures presented in a different format or if you need any other analysis of the reviews.