Thanks for your comment!

Honestly, I don't think having curators to write also reports to justify their votes is a good idea. Most of people here on steemit have a work and their schedule, curators primary task should be to read posts and suggest a vote. If I remember correctly, to get voted posts need the approvation by 2 curators: this is the transparency control. The best would be to have at least 2 curators per language (or even 3!), to speed up the evaluation process and avoid post getting translate to english, with more work for english curators. Having more curators not only will make evaluating process more transparent and fair, but will also speed up things up.

Actually, this demands comes from the community directly. People want to know why they got such an upvote. While I agree this represents a lot of work in general, this is not the case today (we don't vote much). This is why we put it on the table. In addition, reports will be upvoted.

In fact, it would be really hard for a guy to track all comments on STEM posts (I think people will just read posts they are interested in) while it's way more easy (and fair) let the authors report (maybe in a specified channel) the posts where valuable comments are written.

I already know how to do so (the tracking) automatically. Also note that the HM team is large :)

Last but not least: I think It would be really useful to have something like a technical comment under low rewarded posts. Some people just think that re-writing things found on wikipedia or other common sources is doing "STEM posts" and this generate lot of misunderstandings and complains. What if on posts voted for less than 65% , steemstem bot use a different post comment, sayng "your reward was low, if you want to know how to improve contact us on the discord"? This way we can make the "question and complain" channel more a "question" one and less "complain/beg" channel.

I will think about it. This is a nice suggestion.