This Q&A is now read-only
Official Q&A: VEX V5 Robotics Competition 2025-2026: Push Back
2867: Burden of Proof at tournaments regarding G4 and G2
(This is a hypothetical situation, this is not a real team or people) This question is asked by us because as the season ramps up we see teams often have members that occasionally may have to miss competition.
Imagine team 1234A, who has a extremely advanced positioning algorithm that uses a wide variety of sensors, and does complex calculations in code to estimate values. This is the Schrödinger location system. 1234A has 4 members Alice-Driver Bailey-Builder Carson-Coder Dom-Designer
Scenario 1: Team 1234A is at a event, but only Alice and Bailey are at the competition (Carson and Dom are unable to attend maybe due to travel, sickness, etc). A judge, referee or other event staff raises concerns representing the programming of the robot representing their skill level. Team 1234A does not have a notebook (various reasons). Person A and B have zero understanding of the programming systems used, and maybe know that the Schrödinger location system allows them to locate the robot on the field, however cannot defend the code they have.
Scenario 2: Team 1234A is at a event, but only Alice and Bailey are at the competition (Carson and Dom are unable to attend maybe due to travel, sickness, etc). A judge, referee or other event staff raises concerns representing the programming of the robot representing their skill level. Team 1234A does have a notebook Bailey wrote that in great detail explains the Schrödinger location system, reasons behind its implementation, and the iterations of the software. (Basically without any doubt we can assume Carson designed and implemented said software without any outside help.) Person A and B have zero understanding of the programming systems used, and maybe know that the Schrödinger location system allows them to locate the robot on the field, however cannot defend the code they have.
For this Q and A, lets assume that there is no other evidence of Carson coding the Schrödinger location system besides the notebook in scenario 2, and scenario 1, the judges just have to believe Alice and Bailey, but Carson is on the team roster without a question.
Would Scenario 1 or 2 be a violation of <G4> given the rest of the robot is explained properly except coding?
What if 1 or more other sections, Dom's design maybe cannot be explained? Is it then a <G4>.
What would the reprecussions for violating <G4> in this case be, would they still be allowed to compete given benefit of the doubt?
Thanks, Team 1523C, for these questions.
Because events, Teams, Event Partners, Judge Advisors, and Head Referees (and their opinions and skill sets) vary widely, we're unable to provide blanket guidance for how much proof is enough when <G4> concerns are raised at an event, and we are unable to provide guidance for the hypothetical scenarios in your question beyond a couple of very basic statements.
- Your scenarios and questions highlight exactly why Teams should record all details of their research and work in an engineering notebook.
- If the Student Team members who are at the event when a <G4> concern is raised don't understand and/or cannot defend the Team's work, they risk a <G4> Violation and the resulting penalties.