Expert review of a sample of the five sector strategies adopted most recently during the latest full calendar year and the MTBF adopted in the following year to determine if the funding identified in the sectorial strategies was met. The analysis focuses on identifying inconsistencies between sectorial strategies and the amounts provided for in the MTBF. Inconsistencies are considered material if the sectorial strategies include cost estimates that are 20% or more above the actual funding foreseen in the MTBF for the corresponding objectives. The review is conducted by analysing three objectives from each sample strategy with the highest expenditure estimates and with a deadline for completion during the validity period of the most recent MTBF. If it is not possible to identify matching objectives in the MTBF, the activities/measures with the highest cost estimate are selected (15 objectives or activities in total). If there are clear cases of activities with high expenditure needs not being costed, then all three objectives of the strategy are considered to be inconsistent with the MTBF. Point allocation: • 3 points = not more than three inconsistencies as defined above. • 2 points = four to six material cases with inconsistencies as defined above. • 1 point = seven to nine material cases with inconsistencies as defined above. • 0 points = ten or more material cases with inconsistencies as defined above, or sector planning documents do not include costing information, or it is not possible to match the objectives from sector strategies with the objectives in the MTBF.