Eligibility
The event capacity is currently capped at 50 competitors! Registration will be on a first-come/ first-served basis. Capacity may increase based on meeting certain donation milestones.
Any WWU student can participate, no matter what major you are! Also, Alumni that have graduated within 2 years of October 18th can participate.
Participants must register before October 3rd.
Participation
Teams must work together on-site in the facilities provided. Participants are free to leave and return as needed.
Participants are able to quit the competition at any time, no questions asked, but must notify event staff of their intent. If a team shrinks to less than the minimum required number of team members, that team will be disqualified. Participants that wish to continue competing can request to join another team with a 2/3 affirmative vote from the receiving team, but that team must not already have the maximum capacity of members, and teams may not be modified after midnight on the last day of the event.
All participants must sign an agreement after checking in to the event agreeing to the rules of the competition. All rules mentioned in the agreement supersede any rules on this or any other site affiliated with this event.
Judging Criteria and Winner Selection
Scoring will take place in two stages: the Review Stage and the Presentation Stage.
During the Review Stage, Judges will be provided with the following rubric* to fill out for each submission. Each submission will be given a score for each category from 1 to 5. Teams can score up to 35 points during the Review Stage.
| Category | 5 – Excellent | 4 – Very Good | 3 – Good | 2 – Limited | 1 – Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation & Creativity | Highly original; novel use of technology | Creative with unique elements | Some originality; common approach | Minimal originality; derivative | No clear innovation |
| Impact & Community Relevance | Deep understanding of community needs, significant impact potential | Addresses the problem(s) and impacts the community’s needs in a meaningful way | Addresses the problem in an incomplete way; impact is limited or unclear | Weak relevance to community need, unclear impact | No clear problem, does not reflect the community’s needs |
| Design & User Experience | Polished, intuitive, and accessible | Clear and usable design | Functional but unpolished | Confusing experience | Not usable |
| Feasibility & Scalability | Highly feasible and scalable | Feasible with minor limits | Feasible with challenges | Difficult to scale | Unrealistic |
| Technical Execution & Interdisciplinary Development | Fully functional; strong implementation | Mostly functional; minor issues | Partially functional; basic build | Major technical issues | Non-functional, has major bugs |
| Equity & Ethical Consideration | Demonstrates strong ethical awareness; implements concrete safeguards | Clearly identifies any major risks; proposes a realistic safeguard | Identified specific risks; limited or unclear mitigation steps | Basic ethical risks briefly recognized; discussion is incomplete | No clear consideration; sensitive harms, biases, or misuses are unaddressed |
| Fitness | Directly addresses the problem statement, and goes above and beyond the minimum expectations. | Directly addresses the problem statement. | Addresses most of the problem statement. | Adresses some of the problem statement. | Doesn't address the problem statement. |
During the Presentation Stage, teams will present their solutions to the panel of judges. Presentations will be open to the public. The judges will score presentations based on:
- Delivery. How well can your team deliver the presentation? Did you stay within the time limit, recover quickly from mistakes, and stay engaged with the audience?
- Content. How relevant and interesting is the information presented? Were the slides just words on a screen, black text - white background, or did it appear like genuine effort was placed on creating the presentation?
- Knowledge. How quickly and confidently can you answer questions from the judges or the audience? Is it clear that your team did their homework, or is obvious that your team vibe-coded or otherwise AI-generated the entire project without intent?
As with the previous stage, judges will be provided with a rubric for scoring each category from 1 to 5. Winners will be ranked based on the accumulation of points (out of 50) from both stages.
*Credit for most of the judging criteria is given to the Hackathon Committee for SJHPHL 2026: Link to SJHPHL 2026