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

<VUR12> states that: "There are no restrictions on Sensors, External Processors, and other Additional Electronics, except as follows: a. There is no restriction on commercially available Sensors, External Processors, or Additional Electronics that Robots may use for sensing and processing."

With the definition of Additional electronics being: "Any Sensor, processor, or other electronic component used in Robot construction, and connected to the V5 Robot Brain, that is not sold by VEX Robotics. Examples include commercially-available devices (e.g., Raspberry Pi) or custom devices designed and fabricated by the Team. See <VUR12> and <VUR13> for more details."

<VUR12a> seems to read like "commercially available" applies to all items in that list, including Additional Electronics, however, the definition of Additional Electronics includes the example of "custom devices designed and fabricated by the Team", which doesn't seem to fall under this category. In addition, it doesn't seem to be a restriction which the main paragraph for <VUR12> anticipates ("There are no restrictions … except as follows:") So, my questions are:

Do Additional Electronics need to be commercially available, and if so, what is the definition of commercially available?

Are circuit boards designed by the team but manufactured by a commercial third party, such as JLCPCB, legal? What about circuit boards designed and fabricated by the Team as addressed in the example?

Do Additional Electronics fall under the same restrictions as Fabricated Parts outlined in <VUR3> through <VUR7>? For example, circuit boards are most commonly made from fiberglass, which is prohibited for fabricated parts under <VUR6c>, and <VUR7> requires documentation proving that parts are designed by team members.

In previous seasons, any additional electronics, whether designed or built by the team or not, were legal, despite it not being explicitly stated in the game manual. However, with the addition of part a to this rule, it seems like interpretation could swing either way. I am aware that Q&A 2651 addresses a similar issue regarding a change in the definition, but it doesn't address the addition of <VUR12a>, which some might interpret as overwriting the definition.

Thanks for clearing this up.