Each project will be evaluated across 5 key dimensions, with scores from 1 (low) to 20 (exceptional) in each:
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 0–4 | Common or derivative idea with no novel element |
| 5–8 | Some originality, but lacks a creative spark or uniqueness |
| 9–12 | Interesting twist or partial innovation; not fully novel |
| 13–16 | Clearly innovative and shows strong creative thinking |
| 17–20 | Breakthrough-level idea with unexpected and clever execution |
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 0–4 | Unclear or low relevance to real-world needs |
| 5–8 | Addresses a problem but with limited impact potential |
| 9–12 | Meaningful problem tackled, but unclear reach or scale |
| 13–16 | Strong problem alignment with visible community benefit |
| 17–20 | Deep, scalable impact on critical urban/Societal challenge |
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 0–4 | Non-functional or barely demonstrates the concept |
| 5–8 | Prototype exists but is unstable or missing key functionality |
| 9–12 | Functional prototype using some AI/low-code tools |
| 13–16 | Robust prototype with clear architecture and good use of tools |
| 17–20 | Technically sound, fully working prototype with 2+ sponsor tools integrated smoothly |
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 0–4 | Confusing interface; hard to navigate or understand |
| 5–8 | Usable but unintuitive; major design issues present |
| 9–12 | Generally clear UX; a few rough areas |
| 13–16 | Intuitive interface with strong visual and functional flow |
| 17–20 | Excellent UX/UI with seamless interactions and thoughtful design |