Other Rubric Categories

These rubric criteria are not especially complex, and did not require their own articles as a result.

This analysis uses the up-to-date rubric as of August 2025. As new versions of each rubric are announced, this article will be updated shortly following. The up-to-date rubrics can be found in this article and on the RECF website.

It is important to repeat each criteria of the notebook throughout the Engineering Notebook, rather than using each step once for the initial design cycle. Consistent repetition of each step will lead to higher rubric scores.

Repeat Design Process

Shows that the design process is repeated multiple times to work towards a design goal. This includes a clear definition and justification of the design goal(s), its criteria, and constraints. The notebook shows setbacks that the team learned from, and shows design alternatives that were considered but not pursued.

This criteria is one of, if not the most important to consider when writing an Engineering Notebook. Repeating each step of the Engineering Design Process multiple times throughout the notebook shows a more thorough understanding of the Design Process as a whole, which is evident as the notebook is being judged. One easy way to show this is to label each design cycle as such (Robot Design Cycle 1, Robot Design Cycle 2, etc.) in the Table of Contents and in entry titles. This, along with repeating the various notebook segments will earn considerable points on the rubric.

In addition to meeting this criteria, repeating the Design Process throughout the notebook will reinforce the other criteria on the rubric, as each criteria will have more opportunities to be repeated and shown to judges - making repetition that much more important. As a general rule of thumb, this criteria can serve as an indicator of the overall scoring success of the notebook - consistency is key!

Independent Inquiry

Team shows evidence of independent inquiry from the beginning stages of their design process. Notebook documents whether the implemented ideas have their origin with students on the team, or if students found inspiration elsewhere.

In the beginning stages of your robot, researching for the tasks to be completed is necessary, as many released designs or otherwise may be used as inspiration. This criteria showcases imagination and creativity in not only building, but also prototyping and designing your robot. Many, or most, designs should be original and genuine rather than "holecounted" from another team.

While using outside sources is generally expected, especially as certain potential solutions or resources become staples within the community, using those resources and ideas to develop your own designs is key to reinforce this rubric criteria.

Usability and Completeness

Records the entire design and development process with enough clarity and detail that the reader could recreate the project's history. Notebook has recent entries that align with the robot the team has brought to the event.

In completing the previous criteria effectively and in detail, this criteria should be met without that much additional effort on behalf of the team. Specific to this step, it is important to clearly indicate the level of progress in each design cycle as it is being recorded. Having a clear record of the current step in each iteration or cycle will make the project history much more comprehensible.

Originality & Quality

Content is kept to relevant information and all content not original to the team longer than a paragraph is located in appendices to the Engineering Notebook. Information originating from outside the team is always properly cited in the notebook with the source and date accessed. Most or all Engineering Notebook content is orignial to the submitting team members.

This rubric criteria calls for notebook content to be specific and relevant to the overall team design process as a whole, as well as for outside to be properly cited as applicable.

Citations

In accordance with the RECF Student Centered Policy, a proper citation may follow whichever format the team may choose, but should generally include the following information:

• Title of resource or source code

• Author(s)

• Date of publication or release

• Version (if applicable)

• Location (where to find the source)

While the exact specifications of a citation fall to the team, citing all outside sources is a requirement per this rubric criteria. Utilizing original sketches or prototypes is one alternative to both avoid needing to cite sources as well as include more original content - which is also a part of this criteria. Should a team wish to keep citations in the main content to a minimum, citations can be abbreviated and included within an Appendix.

What is an Appendix?

New to the 2025-26 competition season, Appendices are optional segments that can be included after the main content of the notebook. An Appendix contains content that will not be scored during the Judging process, and is present to store extraneous content that does not directly impact the team design process.

Here is a general list of things that may be prudent to store in an Appendix:

• Thorough citations, to be referenced by abbreviated citations in the main notebook.

• Logs containing mass amounts of testing data, to be summarized and explained in the main notebook.

• Outside sources pasted in their entirety (ex: a whole Purdue SIGBots Wiki article) to be referenced in the main notebook.

The general rule of thumb is as follows: if you want it to be scored by the rubric, do not include it in an Appendix! Use Appendices as a means to keep the main content of the notebook directly to the point, removing extra "fluff" content.

Organization / Readability

Entries are logged in a table of contents. There is an overall organization to the document that makes it easy to reference, such as color coded entries, tabs for key sections, or other markers. Notebook contains little to no extraneous content that does not further the engineering design process.

While the main purpose of the Table of Contents is to describe the what, where, and when of each page in the notebook, there are many ways to further illustrate to readers exactly what and where everything is, making it as easy as possible to find information.

One technique that can be used to make the Table of Contents more concise and easy to read is the use of page ranges. While it is very important to include specific page locations for topics in the notebook, consolidating the page numbers of larger topics into the applicable range cuts down on repeating topic names, and uses fewer lines in the Table of Contents.

As for other organizational tips, color coding each general topic covered in the Table of Contents is a good way to make things easier to find, as well as to further illustrate the Engineering Design Process. For example, each step in the Engineering Design Process could be assigned a color, with each topic in the Table of Contents being assigned one of those colors. That way, it is much more evident for the judges that the Engineering Design Process is being continuously followed. Similarly, using colored pull tabs for major sections of the notebook can make it even easier for judges to find important information.

Additionally, using Hyperlinks that link directly to each entry is an essential way to make Digital Engineering Notebooks easy to navigate for judges.

The included notebook photos are from the BLRS2 Over Under ('23-'24) Notebook. While the notebook did win Design Award at the 2024 World Championship, it should be noted that this is not a perfect notebook, though it is a good example to start with.