Guideline 04
How your idea will be evaluated.
We are sharing this rubric openly because we want you to succeed. There are no hidden criteria. If you understand what the judges are looking for, you can focus your effort on the things that matter most.
Scoring overview
Your submission is scored across six dimensions. Each carries a different weight, reflecting its importance to the overall evaluation.
Problem Understanding
25%How clearly does the team identify and explain a real civic problem?
Evidence & Research
20%How well has the team observed, documented and researched the problem?
Solution & Creativity
20%How original, clear and thoughtful is the proposed idea?
Feasibility
15%Is this idea realistic? Could it actually be implemented, even if it takes time?
Impact & Vision 2047
10%If implemented, how many people would it help and how does it connect to the future?
Presentation Quality
10%How well does the team communicate their idea through the PowerPoint submission?
Why these weights?
Problem Understanding and Evidence together account for 45% of the total score. This is deliberate. In most idea competitions, students are rewarded primarily for a clever solution. Here, the quality of your thinking about the problem is just as important as the solution itself. A team that deeply understands a problem and brings strong evidence will score well even if their solution is simple.
Feasibility, Impact and Presentation carry lower individual weights not because they are unimportant, but because they naturally follow from strong problem understanding. A team that truly understands a problem will almost always propose something feasible and impactful.
The detailed rubric
Each dimension is scored on a four-level scale. Here is exactly what the judges look for at each level.
Problem Understanding
25%How clearly does the team identify and explain a real civic problem?
The foundation of any good idea is a deep understanding of the problem. A team that truly understands why a problem exists will naturally arrive at better solutions. This dimension carries the highest weight because everything else depends on it.
| Level | What the judges are looking for |
|---|---|
| Excellent | The problem is clearly defined with specific detail — who is affected, where, and how often. The team explains why the problem exists, not just what it is. The problem is genuinely civic: it affects a community, not just one person. |
| Good | The problem is identified clearly but the explanation of why it exists is surface-level. The civic nature of the problem is apparent. |
| Developing | The problem is stated but vaguely — it could apply to many situations. Limited understanding of who is affected or why the problem persists. |
| Weak | The problem is unclear, too broad, or not a civic issue. No evidence that the team understands the problem beyond a headline. |
Swipe the table sideways to see all columns.
Evidence & Research
20%How well has the team observed, documented and researched the problem?
This is what makes our competition different. We are not asking students to sit in a classroom and imagine problems — we are asking them to go out, look, and bring back proof.
| Level | What the judges are looking for |
|---|---|
| Excellent | Strong, original evidence: photographs taken by the team, data collected, or interviews conducted. Evidence clearly supports the problem statement and is not borrowed from the internet. |
| Good | Reasonable evidence — some original, some secondary. It supports the problem but could be stronger or more specific. |
| Developing | Evidence is mostly from the internet or textbooks, with little original observation. The link between evidence and problem is loose. |
| Weak | No meaningful evidence. The team has not observed the problem — the submission is based on assumption. |
Swipe the table sideways to see all columns.
Solution & Creativity
20%How original, clear and thoughtful is the proposed idea?
Creativity does not mean complexity. A simple idea nobody has thought of is more creative than a complicated one borrowed from the internet.
| Level | What the judges are looking for |
|---|---|
| Excellent | The idea is original — not a copy of an existing well-known solution. It directly addresses the root cause, and the role of technology is clear and logical. |
| Good | The idea is reasonable and addresses the problem, though it may not be highly original. Technology is mentioned but its role could be clearer. |
| Developing | The idea is generic or commonly known. The connection between the solution and the specific problem is weak. |
| Weak | No clear solution, or the solution does not relate to the problem. The idea appears copied without understanding. |
Swipe the table sideways to see all columns.
Feasibility
15%Is this idea realistic? Could it actually be implemented, even if it takes time?
We do not expect a prototype. But we do expect students to think about whether the idea could work in the real world. An idea does not need to be easy — it needs to be possible.
| Level | What the judges are looking for |
|---|---|
| Excellent | The team has thought about how the idea would be implemented, acknowledging challenges and constraints — cost, resources, scale — even briefly. Ambitious but grounded. |
| Good | The idea seems implementable but practical challenges are not addressed. Some awareness of real-world constraints. |
| Developing | Vague about implementation — it reads as a wish rather than a plan. Practical constraints are ignored. |
| Weak | Unrealistic, or requires resources far beyond what is practical. No thought given to how the idea could become real. |
Swipe the table sideways to see all columns.
Impact & Vision 2047
10%If implemented, how many people would it help and how does it connect to the future?
This competition is framed around Vision 2047. Even a small, local idea can paint a powerful picture of the future.
| Level | What the judges are looking for |
|---|---|
| Excellent | The team clearly explains who would benefit and estimates the scale of impact, with a thoughtful connection to what the community could look like by 2047. The vision feels personal and grounded. |
| Good | Impact is mentioned but not quantified. Some attempt to connect the idea to a broader vision of the future. |
| Developing | Impact is assumed but not explained. The 2047 connection feels forced or superficial. |
| Weak | No discussion of who would benefit or why the idea matters. No connection to a future vision. |
Swipe the table sideways to see all columns.
Presentation Quality
10%How well does the team communicate their idea through the PowerPoint submission?
A great idea poorly communicated is a missed opportunity. This is not about design skills — it is about clarity.
| Level | What the judges are looking for |
|---|---|
| Excellent | The presentation flows logically: problem, evidence, solution, feasibility, impact. Slides are clear, uncluttered and easy to follow, and the team's own voice comes through. |
| Good | Covers the key points but the flow could be smoother. Slides are acceptable but could be clearer. |
| Developing | Disorganised or hard to follow. Key sections are missing or out of order. |
| Weak | Incomplete, incoherent, or does not address the required elements. |
Swipe the table sideways to see all columns.