Evaluation Scale

Instructions for Correctors

The correction is performed by a jury.

This evaluation is based on the Technical specs provided by the group, any modifications during the module NEED to be justified and accepted by the jury.

If the project does not meet the minimum requirements, the evaluation ends immediately.

The code can be compiled from their PCs, given that it’s only the code that has been submitted to the jury on the date of the module’s deadline.

</aside>

1. Group Evaluation (70 pts)

Item	Criteria	Max Points
Delivery Format	Functional delivery on Breadboard	55
Delivery Format	Functional delivery on PCB (Add to above)	15
Content Verification	-10 pts per missing functional block from specs	-70
Library Usage	-5 pts per unjustified library in Git	-50
Functional Tests	-5 pts per malfunctioning but existing block	-50

2. Individual Evaluation (30 pts)

To be evaluated per student present.

Look at the question pool, not available here for obvious reasons.

Skill Area	Goal	Points
Basic Knowledge	Assessment of technical theory (Electronics, Firmware)	0 - 10
Technical Defense	Defense of protocols used in the project	0 - 10
CAD Application	Practical KiCad test (Symbol/Schema/Footprint/Routing)	0 - 10

3. Jury Final Assessment & Adjustment (+10/-10)

Criteria	Description	Points (+/-)
Jury Professionalism	Quality of build, documentation, and effort.	-5 to +5
Long term vision	Is the project polished enough for continued development (v2, upgrades, potential changes, etc…) ?	0 to +5
Deficiency Penalty	Major issues found by Jury not covered above.	-5 to 0

Questions

</aside>

1. Professionalism (-5 to +5)

Focus: Build quality, documentation, and the reality of the work vs. the promise.

Build Quality: "Looking at the soldering, cabling, and PCB layout: if this were a consumer product, what is the biggest area you would need to improve to pass a quality assurance check?"
Documentation: "If I were a new student taking over this project, how long do you think it would take me to understand how to build and maintain it based only on your documentation ?"
Design Rationale: "How did you arrive at your component selection regarding power consumption and physical footprint ? Were there tighter constraints you had to work around ?"
Effort consistency: "Can you talk about the most difficult bug you encountered during the 16 weeks and explain the systematic approach you used to solve it ?"

2. Long-term Vision (0 to +5)

Focus: Scalability, upgradeability, and "post-game" thinking.