This article explains how Engineering Notebooks are evaluated, what a strong notebook contains, and the standards for student ownership and academic honesty. It is written for judges, Judge Advisors, Event Partners, and volunteers.
Definitions of the terms used here are maintained in the central Glossary.
For how notebook findings feed into award selection, see Judging Deliberations.
The Engineering Notebook is a student-created record of the team's engineering journey throughout the season. It documents how the team identified problems, developed ideas, tested solutions, and improved their robot over time. A good notebook is created by students, reflects the team's actual design process, explains both what the team did and why they did it, and serves as a working document rather than a presentation created solely for judges.
Notebook length or appearance does not determine quality. Judges evaluate the team's engineering design process, student ownership, and evidence of learning, not the notebook's appearance, length, or graphic design. All Engineering Notebooks should be evaluated based on the Engineering Notebook Rubric. See this article to download a PDF of the rubric.
Ownership and Honesty
Engineering Notebooks must be written and organized by students and comply with Student-Centered and Code of Conduct policies. Teams must credit outside sources and ideas and include citations for any non-original content. A notebook must not contain content created, edited, or organized by adults, must not use AI or LLM tools to generate, revise, or organize its content, and must not plagiarize from other teams, previous seasons, or online examples.
Any concerns regarding academic honesty or student ownership should be reported to the Judge Advisor.
Notebook Contents
A strong notebook documents:
- Team goals and meeting notes
- Brainstorming and design ideas
- Sketches, photos, and design iterations
- Testing, results, and improvements
- Programming changes and decisions
- Resource management and project planning
- Competition observations and lessons learned
- Enough detail for someone else to understand the team's process
It should show both the team's successes and its failures.
General Expectations
The notebook should include the team number and a table of contents, be dated and organized chronologically, identify its student authors, and show evidence that documentation occurred throughout the season. Throughout, the focus should be on content and clarity rather than appearance, since judges evaluate what the notebook contains, not its length, formatting, or level of beautification.
Appendices
Appendices may include research materials, source documents, code iterations, competition resources, and other cited materials. Judges are not required to review appendices.
Notebook Submission
All teams at an event must submit their notebooks in the same format specified by the Event Partner, and physical and digital notebooks are evaluated using the same criteria. Teams are responsible for ensuring their notebooks are organized and accessible, and notebook contents remain confidential.
Notebook Evaluation Process
Sort
Engineering Notebooks are first categorized as Developing or Fully Developed. A Developing notebook is an incomplete record of the design process with limited detail and evidence, while a Fully Developed notebook is a complete, detailed record that includes design iterations, testing, and problem solving. Only Fully Developed notebooks should be considered for the Design, Innovate, and Excellence Awards.
Evaluate
Judges use the Engineering Notebook Rubric as a sorting tool, with at least two judges evaluating each notebook when possible. Final rankings are determined through qualitative discussion rather than rubric scores alone, and judges apply a consistent time limit when reviewing notebooks.
Notebook Anomalies
Judges should be aware of notebooks that:
- Show a final robot with little evidence of the design process.
- Have large gaps in documentation.
- Contain no failures, testing, or iteration.
- Present an overly polished narrative without evidence of development.
- Include content copied from other teams or previous seasons.
In the absence of direct evidence, teams should be given the benefit of the doubt.