Well, apparently none of that was done. I got one question on the corrections I proposed. However on most of the ones I submitted actual open data, like the water quality, national maps, administrative boundaries, etc., none of the feedback was considered. Mostly, I see that submitters reviewed their own submissions. They gave 0% on water quality in Bulgaria despite the fact that the data is actually open in the government portal: https://discuss.okfn.org/t/entry-for-water-quality-bulgaria/4248 Even with extended questions, it's impossible to get 90% on water quality in 2015 (http://index.okfn.org/place/bulgaria/water/) and 0% in 2016.
There are without a doubt shortcoming in some areas like weather and address mapping. Some datasets still need to be paid for and this was reflected. However feedback on flawed submissions on all topics were not considered. Resubmissions were not allowed. These errors are easy to identify if one checks the government site or googles "bulgaria open data" - the government open data portal is the first result.
I will not be endorsing the index this year as a good measure or comparison between countries. The submission and review process degraded significantly.