Personally, I believe as actors we all performed to the best of our ability, however for me the actual piece that my group had to show was ultimately lacking. It lacked the energy we had all grown accustomed too from our previous performances/workshops, and as such, for me, it felt like it wasn't as enticing for the audience (An example being the lack of large body language in our piece led to quite small, limited characters being portrayed, and as such would lead to a less engaged audience). However given the seriousness of our topic it would have been rather hard to come up with these 'larger than life' characters for a topic like gender as, without being offensive in anyway, it is VERY easy to make one small misstep and end up offending an entire gender just for making one character slightly too 'larger than life'.
In regards to how well our piece catered to its intended target audience - that being EVERYONE - I got the impression it went quite well, as we kept everything simplified (refer back to my "AUDIENCE" section for a full explanation of how it catered to the piece's target audience).
The audience's responses surprised me. We received a surprising amount of laughs during interview sections, which looking back on makes a degree of sense, as the awkwardness of watching someone imitate another individual you perhaps even know - especially if done well - can be quite a comedic experience. One major response we got, was from one of Kelly's friends was how "Mature" our piece was and that it was a very "Mature form of storytelling". This I believe was needed amongst our group as before getting this feedback we had considered our piece a failure for not competing with the liveliness of the other groups performance, however after receiving this news we all began to take a more positive stance towards our "Adult" piece.
The main storytelling techniques used personally by me were; dramatic pauses, comedic timings, physical theatre (To a small degree), manipulating my voice (In order to cast either a creepy, sinister mood on a scene, or to portray a timid character just trying to please the audience/interviewer - this is referring to Alex's sister whose interview I based my verbatim monologue around)  and monologues.
In my eyes the strongest aspect of our performance was the solo monologues. Without sounding big-headed each of us tasked with a monologue brought it to life, each in their own way; Louise by embodying the individuality that was prominent throughout Kelly's interview, Alex by becoming this individual completely unlike his usual friendly and smiling persona, and in my own monologue I feel I couldn't have created a character who had a better balance between wanting to please others whilst showing how nervous they were to be on the spot without going completely into the realms of a 'Melodramatic' performance.
In contrasts to this, the one improvement I would make is a simple one...More interaction in the solo monologues. Even though I fully believe they were the strongest aspect, with just a bit of interaction from other members of our group during them (Like what me and Jacob did during Louise's part) would have done wonders for how engaging our piece was.
Skills I personally will endeavour to hold onto for future theatrical practices, will almost certainly be the ability blend real-life text - be that in any form; newspaper, interviews, speeches etc. - into future devising projects. This is because it affords the piece a sense of legitimacy and realism, not easily found elsewhere (This would be especially useful if the piece I was attempting to devise was to be political in nature, or trying to send a message/convince people, as the more legitimate something is, the more people take note of it).