Nobody advances on one person's opinion. Every entry gets two independent reviews, and each later gate has its own panel. The first screen is deliberately light: a problem worth solving, and a team that can carry it. After that, the five criteria below do the work, and they hold from fall through spring. What changes is the evidence. Early on you can describe what you plan to build. By demo week you have to show it running. A polished concept with nothing behind it won't score.
Each group works at a different point in the funnel. And we keep support separate from judgment on purpose: reviewers and mentors never double as the judges who decide who advances. That way the build room stays a place you can actually ask for help.
Score the entry deliverable against a light gate and advance the semi-finalists. At this stage there is nothing built to look at, so the read is on the thinking and the people behind it.
One panel, one Friday: judges watch teams at work during the final build session and pick the top 10 for demo week. Scoring and deliberation happen afterward, not in the room.
A mostly external, senior panel runs the interactive demos and selects the finalists. The deepest, most hands-on evaluation of the fall, decided on working evidence.
Nothing is built yet at entry, so the first gate is lighter than the rubric below. Reading the one-page PDF (and the optional visuals page) and the two-minute video, reviewers look for a clear finance problem, a defined user, a solution that can realistically be built, and feasibility within the timeline.
Each criterion is worth 20% and applies in both phases. The set stays constant; what changes is how each one is read for what that phase actually tests, as the evidence bar rises from a working prototype in the fall to a refined product in the spring.
| Criterion (20% each) | Fall build phase | Spring showcase |
|---|---|---|
| Aesthetics / UI20% | The interface is clear and reasonably polished for a working prototype. | A polished, professional product and presentation. |
| Ease of use20% | A real user can complete the core task in the demo without hand-holding. | Demonstrated usability, with evidence of real use or testing. |
| Finance understanding20% | Sound finance and domain reasoning: a real problem, credible assumptions and data. | Depth of finance and domain reasoning, and validated claims. |
| AI implementation20% | Effective, appropriate, and disclosed use of AI and vibe-coding to build the solution. | Sophisticated, responsible AI use, clearly disclosed. |
| Creativity / uniqueness20% | Original problem framing or approach, differentiated from off-the-shelf tools. | Originality, venture potential, and differentiation. |