2.5 System Assessment

Judges inspect the team’s ASV and assess technical design, technical innovation, and craftsmanship of the design. Teams receive an assigned 30-minute slot. After the assessment, teams should make themselves available for a team photo and optional video interview. Please find the latest assessment schedule here: roboboat.org/2025.

2.5.1 Deliverable Requirements

Team members should be present to answer technical questions posed by the judges during this inspection and be prepared to explain their design strategy and how decisions made impacts on the technical design, functionality, and craftsmanship.

2.5.2 Scoring Metrics

The system assessment is worth a total of 180 points. The scoring metrics include a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.

Technical Design (45% of score)

Outstanding	Design and implementation of systems and subsystems are well aligned with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles. Clear and thoughtful design choices are evident in the technical functions, key decisions, and testing regimen.
Strong	Good and knowledgeable rationale and execution of design selections made, aligning with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.
Average	Adequate explanation of technical design decisions, equipment selections, and testing regimen, mostly evident in the vehicle and subsystems.
Below Average	Rationale of technical design is briefly covered with minimal alignment with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.
Requirements Not Met	Design and implementation of systems and subsystems are not aligned with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.

Innovation (30% of score)

Outstanding	Full system demonstrates creative and innovative solutions by applying existing technology in novel ways within the system, using existing technology in a previously unintended way, or creating new technology or products incorporated into the system.
Strong	Clear evidence of innovative approaches across multiple sub-systems. Research and testing were conducted throughout the development process.
Average	There is moderate evidence that creative and innovative solutions were incorporated into system to improve performance.
Below Average	Little evidence of creativity or innovation in design choices throughout the system.
Requirements Not Met	No technical innovation noted.

Craftsmanship (25% of score)

Outstanding	System is assembled with exquisite care and thoughtful attention to detail and aesthetics. Construction and improvisations are neatly executed to maintain high levels of functionality, durability, and adherence to the team's design philosophy. Any vehicle adornment demonstrates creativity, originality, etc.
Strong	System is assembled with care and attention to detail and aesthetics. Construction and improvisations maintain acceptable levels of functionality, durability, and adherence to the team's design philosophy.
Average	System is assembled to execute acceptable levels of functionality, durability and adherence to team’s design philosophy.
Below Average	Minimal evidence that system is assembled with care and attention to detail and aesthetics. Adherence to team’s design philosophy is vague and unclear.
Requirements Not Met	Evident hazards or potential hazards throughout the system. The system was assembled with minimal care and attention to detail. Little to no attention to aesthetics.