> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://robonation.gitbook.io/robosub-resources/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://robonation.gitbook.io/robosub-resources/section-2-design-documentation/2.5-system-assessment.md).

# 2.5 System Assessment

Judges inspect the team’s vehicle and assess technical design, technical innovation, and craftsmanship of\
the design. 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. 

Teams receive an assigned 15-minute slot. The assessment schedule can be found on the RoboSub webpage:  [robosub.org/2026](https://robosub.org/2026).

## **2.5.1 Deliverable Requirements**

Team members are required to be present to answer technical questions posed by subject matter expert judges during this inspection and be prepared to explain their design strategy and how decisions made impact 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)

<table data-header-hidden><thead><tr><th width="150"></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Outstanding</td><td>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. </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Strong</p><p> </p></td><td>Good and knowledgeable rationale and execution of design selections made, aligning with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles.  </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Average</p><p> </p></td><td>Adequate explanation of technical design decisions, equipment selections, and testing regimen, mostly evident in the vehicle and subsystems. </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Below Average</p><p> </p></td><td>Rationale of technical design is briefly covered with minimal alignment with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles. </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Requirements Not Met</p><p> </p></td><td>Design and implementation of systems and subsystems are not aligned with team's strategy, design decisions, and engineering principles. </td></tr></tbody></table>

#### **Innovation** (30% of score)

<table data-header-hidden><thead><tr><th width="150"></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Outstanding</td><td>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. </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Strong</p><p> </p></td><td>Clear evidence of innovative approaches across multiple sub-systems. Research and testing were conducted throughout the development process. </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Average</p><p> </p></td><td>There is moderate evidence that creative and innovative solutions were incorporated into system to improve performance. </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Below Average</p><p> </p></td><td>Little evidence of creativity or innovation in design choices throughout the system. </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Requirements Not Met</p><p> </p></td><td>No technical innovation noted. </td></tr></tbody></table>

#### **Craftsmanship** (25% of score)

<table data-header-hidden><thead><tr><th width="150"></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Outstanding</td><td>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. </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Strong</p><p> </p></td><td>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.  </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Average</p><p> </p></td><td>System is assembled to execute acceptable levels of functionality, durability and adherence to team’s design philosophy.  </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Below Average</p><p> </p></td><td>Minimal evidence that system is assembled with care and attention to detail and aesthetics. Adherence to team’s design philosophy is vague and unclear. </td></tr><tr><td><p> </p><p>Requirements Not Met</p><p> </p></td><td>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. </td></tr></tbody></table>