<G4>
All work must represent the skill level of the Students on the Team. All work must represent the skill level of the Students currently on the Team. Teachers, coaches, mentors, and peers can teach concepts, skills, and processes; demonstrate techniques; ask guiding questions; review/critique the Team’s work; and otherwise advise Team members. All final solutions used in competition (including the Team’s design, Robot, code, strategies, documentation, and ongoing work) must be the work of the Student Team members. Organizations should develop a plan that encourages and empowers Students to make their own decisions (see <G2>).
• Designs and code provided by VEX Robotics: Teams may use Robot plans and code (e.g., Hero Bots, VEXcode configurations, etc.) provided by VEX Robotics, but are encouraged to use these Robots, mechanisms, and code only as a starting point that Students modify, improve, or replace as their skills increase. Plans provided by VEX Robotics are the only legal plans available for use in competition.
• Robot design and construction: Teams must avoid academic dishonesty and should not directly copy a Robot or mechanism other than those included in clause A. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of instructions, pictures, videos, notebooks, CAD designs, and/or any other documentation useful to the design process. Teams may be inspired by designs created by other Teams, and can use an idea from someone else to spark innovation, but are expected to clearly document and give credit to all ideas that are used for inspiration. The Team must describe how they made meaningful changes to the original idea to arrive at a design that is uniquely their own. It should be clear that this final implementation is not an exact copy of ANY other original design. Teams should demonstrate their design process in their engineering notebook, and provide it if asked to do so by event staff. Failure to demonstrate evidence of iteration, innovation, and/or modification will result in a Violation. Teams may only use custom parts (e.g., cut/shaped non-shattering plastic, or heavily modified legal VEX components) that were designed and created by the Students on that Team.
• Robot code: Teams may use publicly available example code and/or custom libraries from outside sources. However, Student Team members must understand the resulting code, be able to explain all facets of their competition code, and be capable of independently creating code on a level equivalent to the code used on their Robot if asked to do so. Teams may not use Large Language Models, or similar forms of artificial intelligence (AI), to create or improve the code used in competition, as the resulting code does not reflect the skill level of the Students on the Team.
• Engineering notebook: The Team’s engineering notebook must be the work of the Students on the Team, and cannot be edited, formatted, or revised by anyone other than the Students on the Team. Teams may not use Large Language Models, or similar forms of AI, to create or improve the content of their engineering notebook. Teams can be inspired by engineering notebooks and formats from other Teams and/or seasons, but must ensure that all content is original and created by the members of the Team.
• Collaboration with other Teams: Teams can collaborate on game analysis, brainstorming, strategy, and other steps of the engineering design process, but the final solutions used/presented at competitions must be the independent work of the Students on each Team. Robots, code, and/or engineering notebooks that are identical or substantially similar to one another across Teams, whether they’re within the same school/organization/club or from separate organizations, are in Violation of this rule, regardless of whether they compete in the same or different events. Every Team is expected to put in the time, effort, and resources needed to undergo an independent design process and develop their own Robots and code. Teams that use outside designs, instructions, code, and/or other materials instead of doing their own work undermine the core mission of the program: to provide Students with ownership of their work through hands-on opportunities to learn, design, and innovate. While it is never our desire to punish Students, we must preserve the fairness, educational value, and integrity of the competition. Each Team must be able to explain and defend the design, construction, and programming of their Robot if questioned by event staff. Event organizers cannot reasonably know the origins of every design or independently verify whether a Robot was created from scratch, purchased online, or copied from pictures of another Team’s design. When questions of authenticity arise, the only direct and fair approach is to require Students to explain and defend their work (in conversation and through their engineering notebook if the Team has one), and Students should be prepared to describe their design process, justify design decisions, and demonstrate a full understanding of how their Robot and code function. This is not unlike academic honesty concerns in schools, and intellectual property concerns in business. By requiring Students to defend their designs, we ensure that they are developing not only technical skills, but effective communication skills and accountability as well. If a Team is unable to provide reasonable evidence that their Robot, code, and documentation are the result of their own work, it is appropriate to assume that the Team is in Violation of <G2> and/or <G4>. Consequences may include Disqualification from Matches, removal from events, and/or escalation of the investigation to VEX Robotics for further disciplinary action, which may include sanctions up to and including removal from the program. Event staff should bear in mind <G3>, and use common sense when enforcing this rule. It is not the intent to actively hunt for Violations of this rule, compare every Robot at an event to all other known Robot designs, or closely question every Team at an event about their Robot’s code. This rule is a set of tools for use if potential Violations are noted by or reported to event staff, and it is expected that most Teams will never be required to defend their Robot design or code. Teams or individuals who deliberately weaponize, manipulate, or falsely report <G4> Violations for competitive gain or to harass another Team may be subject to a separate investigation. Misuse of this rule is considered a serious Violation.
This rule has additional Violation notes. See Appendix C.
Game Rules Index