I recognize that this is the current criteria of Design Award. The purpose of this discussion is simply to explore whether the criteria could be updated to include a modest performance requirement. The intent is not to diminish the importance of a strong engineering notebook or interview, but to ensure that, in addition to strong documentation and communication, the robot demonstrates a basic ability to address the season’s game challenge.
There is precedent for this type of refinement. For example, the VEX IQ Think Award previously did not require any autonomous performance. However, following community discussion such as the forum thread titled:
Award Confusion: Why Would a Team with 0 Autonomous Win the Think Programming Award?
The criteria were later updated to require a non-zero autonomous score. This adjustment helped ensure that the award continued to recognize both programming documentation and demonstrated autonomous functionality.
The suggestion here is similar in spirit – to introduce a modest performance benchmark that confirms the robot can meaningfully engage with the season’s challenge. In practice, this threshold would likely already be met by the majority of teams that advance to Worlds. The goal is simply to ensure that, going forward, all teams advancing through the Design Award pathway demonstrate the ability to solve the core game challenge.