I’m not too sure myself, but from my own interpretation from reading the Guide to Judging and the REC Library, this is what I think: (This is also my first year doing a digital engineering notebook in a region where most teams do physical notebooks, so I’ve yet to see how judges have approached this yet)
From my experience, witness signatures aren’t necessary for engineering notebooks. This REC Library article mentions explicitly that witness signatures are not needed (although this article is not written for the context of VRC or VIQRC, so its context shouldn’t matter as mentioned in this Q&A).
The above article also implies that signing the notebook isn’t completely necessary:
Signing, printing or typing your name on each page informs readers of the content’s creator
This suggests that the necessary requirement is to document who has created each entry, not necessarily that it is signed. The engineering notebook section of the Guide to Judging also mentions this:
Engineering Notebooks should contain these elements:
- Team number on the cover/beginning of document.
- Errors crossed out using a single line (so errors can be seen)
- Unedited entries
- All pages/entries intact; no pages/entries or parts of pages/entries removed or omitted.
- Each page/entry chronologically numbered and dated.
- Each page/entry signed or initialed by a student author.
- Team meeting notes as they relate to the design process.
- Permanently affixed pictures, CAD drawings, documents, examples of code, or other material relevant to the design process (in the case of physical notebooks, tape is acceptable, but glue is preferred)
This would mean that a signature may not be necessary if the creator’s initials are on the entry. It also mentions, for additional elements in ‘outstanding’ notebooks, that “Entries are dated with the names of contributing students involved,” but at no point in this section (or the entire Guide to Judging). For my team, this year is the first year that we’re doing our notebook without witness signatures (as far as I am aware, notebooks are not required to have this), even though in past seasons, we have done this mostly consistently. I think the most crucial part is to ensure that you record/mention who has each entry in the notebook in addition to mentioning contributing members in the entry itself.
In terms of entries being in chronological order, the Guide to Judging does mention that entries are “chronologically numbered and dated” for what should be in an engineering notebook, but the guide also mentions the following:
Judges should make every effort to evaluate the contents of the notebook based on the Engineering Notebook Rubric, and not be unduly influenced by the organization methodology chosen by the team.
The rubric for the engineering notebook mentions this in the strand for notebook formatting:
Five (5) points if the notebook has evidence that documentation was done in sequence with the design process. This can take the form of dated entries with the names of contributing students included and an overall system of organization. For example, numbered pages and a table of contents with entries organized for future reference.
Although it’ll typically be best (from my own experience) to do all notebook entries in chronological order (I think this is the easiest way to make entries numbered and dated chronologically), I believe that sectioning your robot design differently should be fine although I would imagine that your entries should, at the very least, roughly be in chronological order to show your various design cycles and the progression of your robot design.
What I have done/plan on doing is to physically sign my entries in the notebook, even with my initials already in the footer of the entry. My entries are formatted chronologically. I’d encourage you to do some research, possibly asking other judges to see if it is required.