Skip to Main Content
VEX Events
 
VEX Robotics

This Q&A is now read-only

Official Q&A: VEX V5 Robotics Competition 2025-2026: Push Back

Usage Guidelines All Questions

2834: G4 / G5 Clarifications

355U
1-Oct-2025

<G4>

Given the recent updates to G4 and the new G5, I have some requests for clarification on situations regarding RECF's definition of Student-Centered activities that could lead to a G-level violation. I'm sure there will be a lot of similar questions to the ones below, there's probably some way to try to consolidate all of these multiple questions from multiple submitters together.

  1. Students on a team were at lunch and realized their match was queuing. A family member or friend (not on the team) ran back to the pits to bring their robot for them.
  2. Students on a team were at lunch and realized their match was queuing. A team member from their alliance ran back to the pits to bring their robot for them.
  3. Students are in queue for a match, realize battery is dead (or they have the wrong plates or don't have safety glasses, etc.), a family member or friend (not on the team) goes to pit to retrieve the equipment
  4. Students are in queue for a match, realize battery is dead (or they have the wrong plates or don't have safety glasses, etc.), a team member from their alliance goes to pit for equipment
  5. Family / friends (not on team) help haul robots / equipment into or out of an event at the start or end of the day.
  6. During queuing, the "stronger" team in an alliance instructs the other team to run a safe auton to give the stronger team's self-AWP a better chance of working

Robot questions, where applicable, is any level of engineering notebook sufficient to overcome a potential G4/G5 violation? If so, can the GDC/RECF provide guidelines as to what that might look like?

  1. An organization has 2 teams, A and B and a shared workspace. Members of teams A and B collaborate on building Mechanism Z, which appears on both team's robots and is visibly identical. The mechanism requires custom non-shattering plastic and both teams use identical versions of this part.
  2. A team "hole counts" a mechanism based on YouTube content. The mechanism is made entirely of Vex-branded parts and is identical to the YouTube version.
  3. At a late-season event, multiple teams use the unmodified Vex Hero Robot. They do not have a notebook.
  4. Two teams from the same organization at a tournament have a virtually identical mechanism on their robot. One uses a standoff where the other uses a screw
  5. Two (or more) teams at an event have the same auton routines
  6. Two (or more) teams have the same programming skills routines
  7. Two (or more) teams use the same driver skills route
  8. Two (or more) teams employ the same match-play strategy
G4  
Answered by committee
9-Oct-2025

Thank you for your questions, Team 355U.

  1. (also applies to #2-5) Rule <G4> does not apply to scenarios 1-5, which do not involve Robot design, Robot construction, coding, strategy, or ongoing work and should generally be assessed under rule <G3>.

#6. Rule <G4> does not apply to scenario 6, and is addressed by rule <G1> and the contents of its red box.

… is any level of engineering notebook sufficient to overcome a potential G4/G5 violation? If so, can the GDC/RECF provide guidelines as to what that might look like?

Neither the game manual nor the GDC provide guidelines for what should be included in a Team’s engineering notebook, should they choose to use one. We recommend that Teams review the related content in the RECF Library, including the pertinent portions of the RECF Guide to Judging.

  1. It would be reasonable for Teams A & B in your example to brainstorm together on ideas for Mechanism Z, but each Team should independently select, design, and build/create a solution. Clauses B & D of rule <G4> apply, and students on each Team must be able to demonstrate that the final design is uniquely their own.

  2. This would be a clear violation of rule <G4> clause B that could lead to penalties up to and including removal from the program if recognized by or reported to event staff.

  3. The hero bot is explicitly allowed by rule <G4> clause C, and an engineering notebook is not a requirement. Although Students are encouraged to move beyond the hero bot as their skills increase, it is not required by any rule.

  4. (also applies to 11-14) We can’t issue blanket rulings based on hypothetical examples. If a concern is raised about a Team’s Robot or code during the event, it becomes the Team’s responsibility to (as stated in the <G4> red box) “explain and defend the design, construction, and programming of their Robot.” The similarities in these examples could represent <G4> Violations, or could be successfully defended by the Teams during conversations with event staff. Similar mechanisms, autonomous routes, or strategies are not necessarily evidence of <G4> Violations, and the determination can only be made after conversations with the Students.