Judge Name (SCA):
Judge Name (Mundane):
Judges should interpret these criteria so as to be appropriate to the product in question.
(2-20; Score x 2)
10) Documentation is complete, with annotated citations. The product’s time, place, and function are included. The process for the product is included with enough detail to be replicable. Any discrepancies are named and rationale for them is provided.
8-9) Documentation has an underdeveloped element. The process could be followed with some additional research effort. Any discrepancies may not be fully justified.
6-7) Documentation may have several underdeveloped elements or have one missing element. The process could be followed with some trial and error to fill in gaps.
4-5) Documentation may have more than one missing element, or several elements are underdeveloped to the point that they significantly impede communication. The process would require assistance to follow.
2-3) Documentation is unclear or otherwise lacking. Process is unclear and replicating it would not result in a successful product.
1 ) Documentation is so lacking that it does not serve its intended purpose.
0) Documentation is absent.
(3-30; Score x 3)
10) Product is as accurate as can be reasonably expected, given safety considerations. Special attention has been given to matching historical reality, with full explanation for each deviation.
8-9) Product is accurate, but with some concessions made for ease of creation or modern functionality. Concessions are adequately explained.
6-7) Product is mostly accurate but has some elements that are clearly modern to a knowledgeable eye. Concessions for modern elements are not identified or explained.
4-5) Product is an even mixture of period and modern components.
2-3) Product is more modern than accurate.
1 ) Product is chiefly modern or ahistorical.
(2-20; Score x 2)
10) Product has a level of complexity that demonstrates expertise, with the successful synthesis of many different individually advanced skills.
8-9) Product demonstrates a high level of complexity, but does not have a seamless integration of all present skills.
6-7) Product demonstrates complexity, but combines skills that are individually basic.
4-5) Product demonstrates modest complexity, with a small number of individually basic skills employed.
2-3) Product demonstrates a low level of complexity, with only a few basic skills employed.
1 ) Product showsa low level of complexity, with only one or two basic skills in evidence.
(3-30; Score x 3):
10) Product’s quality is impeccable. All elements appear authentic and artfully done to a knowledgeable observer. Errors or flaws are either absent or so minor as to not detract from the product in a noticeable way. Product functions exactly as intended.
8-9) Product has at least one minor, but noticeable, flaw. Product functions as intended.
6-7) Product has at least two or more minor, but noticeable, flaws, or at least one flaw significant enough to impede functionality.
4-5) Product has enough flaws that they significantly impede functionality.
2-3) Product does not function as intended, but still functions at least somewhat.
1 ) Product does not function.
(further commentary may be found on additional pages )