I am referring to where the candidates were (performance-wise and professional training/experience-wise) at the beginning of the final competition.

There is no way that Rebecca's academic, business, and games performance compared remotely to Randal's. Her academic background was not as good as Randal's. Her business experience background was not as good as Randal's. Her performance in the Apprentice game itself was not as good as Randal's. He had to give her a chance at PM, just to create the fiction that she deserved to be in the finals.

This is what I mean about a mismatch.

This is also why I think that ability-wise, the Randal-Rebecca finals pairing was more glaringly uneven. My position has to do with the win-loss records and what candidates achieved as team members leading up to the finals, as well as their academic and professional experiences prior to entering the competition.

Again, I will never believe that Randal willingly gave Rebecca the chance to be project manager. From a game theoretic standpoint, it was against his interests to do so. Such a move made absolutely no sense on the game theoretic chess board.

As far as Lee and Sean are concerned, I think that Lee did in fact step up more times to be project manager, but he also lost more times. So Sean's win record was higher than Lee's statistically. Also, Lee did not participate in 2 tasks. So the final match-up was uneven, but not as uneven as the final match-up between Randal and Rebecca.

Again, my observations go to where the candidates were at the beginning of the final challenge.

--Singer