Evaluation Framework
A transparent, evidence-based approach designed to ensure comparability, impartiality and global relevance across all award categories.
Core Evaluation Principles
Evaluation Stages
Eligibility & Completeness Check
Secretariat review for category fit, completeness and minimum evidence requirements.
Independent Jury Scoring
Jurors score entries against the rubric using category criteria and submitted evidence.
Shortlisting (Where Applicable)
Finalists may be requested to clarify results, provide additional evidence or answer jury questions.
Final Review & Confirmation
Five fresh jurors complete final scoring after verification; the Decision Committee then confirms that the controlled record supports the outcome.
Category Scoring Structure
Each category has five mandatory, category-specific criteria totalling 100%. The applicable weights are shown on each category page and in the Programme Standard.
| Stage | Decision rule |
|---|---|
| Juror rating | Each criterion is rated 0–5. The verified evidence tier limits the highest usable rating. |
| Preliminary review | Three jurors score independently; the criterion median is used. |
| Final review | Five fresh jurors score independently after verification and clarification. |
| Thresholds | Shortlist: 70/100 and every median at least 2. Finalist: 75/100, every median at least 3, all evidence E2+ and controls closed. Winner-eligible: 85/100 plus the stated E3+ conditions. |
Evidence Tiers & Rating Caps
Evidence is classified consistently across all categories. A persuasive narrative cannot override the verified evidence cap.
| Tier | Evidence position | Maximum rating |
|---|---|---|
| E0 | No usable evidence | 0 |
| E1 | Assertion or weakly supported material | 1 |
| E2 | Traceable internal evidence with a credible method | 3 |
| E3 | Strong corroboration or independent support | 4 |
| E4 | Exceptional, independently verified and reproducible evidence | 5 |
Category-Specific Evidence (Examples)
Evidence expectations vary by category. The examples below illustrate typical documentation types — you do not need to submit every item, but the submission should support the main claims credibly.
- Architecture overview and technical validation results
- Security testing summary (where relevant)
- Deployment readiness and scaling evidence
- Lifecycle analysis, carbon baseline and measured reduction
- Energy / water / material efficiency metrics
- Circularity or recycling proof points
- Validation plans, reliability metrics, warranty trends
- Safety process governance (reviews, audits, training)
- Evidence of sustained improvement (not one-off)
- Programme results, reach and long-term outcomes
- Safeguards, ethics and inclusion measures
- External partners, audits or public reporting (if available)
Fairness, Confidentiality & Safeguards
Programme Documents
Continue with the controlled First Edition documents for the complete requirements and working templates.
Next steps
Review how to apply, learn about the jury safeguards, or check this year’s timeline before submitting.