Judging Process

Principles

• Independence: judges evaluate nominations independently using the published scoring framework for each category.
• Integrity: judges must disclose conflicts of interest and recuse where required.
• Confidentiality: nominations and scoring are confidential until official publication.
• Transparency: criteria and weights are published as Category Scoring Frameworks.

Evaluation stages

1. Administrative screening for completeness, eligibility basics, and integrity checks.
2. Judge assignment based on subject-matter expertise and conflict-of-interest screening.
3. Scoring by multiple judges using the category’s criteria and weights.
4. Quality assurance (consistency checks, anomaly review, verification requests where needed).
5. Finalization & publication on the official winners list.

Scoring methodology (summary)

Winner determination

• One winner per category: each category results in either one winner or no winner.
• Minimum standards: the top-scoring nomination must meet published minimum thresholds (including a Final Score threshold and a Primary Criterion threshold).
• No “pay-to-win”: nomination fees cover administrative processing and do not influence scoring or outcomes.

Exact thresholds, tie-breaking rules, and disqualification grounds are defined in the Terms & Conditions.

Feedback

Where available, judges may provide concise feedback intended to be constructive and professional. Feedback is not guaranteed for every nomination and may be edited for confidentiality and compliance.

Appeals and disputes

Scoring decisions are final. The Organizer may correct administrative errors or resolve eligibility issues in accordance with the Terms & Conditions.