I have received peer reviews for an academic proposal for a project. Three reviewers (A,B and C) submitted sets of observations and scores for three criteria/sections of the evaluation.
Reviewers A and B gave generally favourably worded reviews with pertinent clarification questions and observations that reflect themselves in the scoring they awarded for each section - generally high, with explanations on why deductions were made. Reviewer C gave significantly lower scores for all sections when compared to A&B but their review only mentioned positive aspects of the project proposal and no questions or negative observations.
For each criterion I am able (and expected) to submit a short "applicant's rebuttal" in order to offer answers and clarifications which address the reviews for that section (one combined field for all three reviewers per section). The three reviewers are going to see these observations, have a panel discussion and potentially amend their scores/reviews if they see fit.
Would it be appropriate to politely point out the discrepancy between A&B's and C's scores and note that much higher score deductions were made by C without any suggestion on what could be improved, taking into account that I would have to do this for each of the three sections in the evaluation? Should I instead just focus on answering A&B's questions and hope that C would (if their score deductions were concerning the same questions) favourably change their score?
Any suggestions on other ways I could proceed with this situation would be greatly appreciated.