Every VEX season has a moment where a team with a mid-table robot walks up for the Design Award and the room goes quiet. That is not luck. Judged awards in VEX competitions run on the engineering notebook, and a well-kept notebook can beat a faster robot. The bad news: experienced judges can usually tell quickly whether a notebook was written as the team went, or reconstructed in a panic the night before.
This guide walks through how notebooks are actually judged, using the REC Foundation's 2025-26 Guide to Judging and its Engineering Notebook Rubric, plus a page template our in-store VEX class students use. It applies to VEX V5 and VEX IQ teams alike. Rules and rubric wording are as of April 2026; check the current Guide to Judging before your next event, because it is updated during the season.
The Short Answer
An award-winning VEX engineering notebook is a dated, student-written record of every design cycle (problem, brainstorm, decision, build, test, repeat) that scores at least 2 points on each of the first four rubric criteria, so judges classify it as Fully Developed and score it for the Design, Innovate and Excellence Awards.
- The 2025-26 rubric has 11 criteria scored 0-5, for a maximum of 55 points.
- Judges first sort notebooks into Developing or Fully Developed; only Fully Developed notebooks get scored.
- Show real test data and your failures; a notebook with no setbacks looks curated.
- Generative AI and adult-written content are not allowed in notebook content.
1. How VEX Judges Actually Read Your Notebook
Knowing the judging process tells you where to spend your effort. According to the REC Foundation's 2025-26 Guide to Judging, judges use the rubric as a sorting tool, then make final rankings qualitatively. Rubric points get you into the conversation; clear evidence of student-driven engineering wins it.
Step one: Developing or Fully Developed
Judges start by quickly sorting every notebook into two piles. Developing notebooks "contain little detail, have few drawings, and are not a complete record of the design process." Fully Developed notebooks contain the complete record: detailed drawings, test results, problem descriptions and chosen solutions. Only Fully Developed notebooks are scored. The threshold matters: a notebook that does not score 2 or more on each of the first four criteria is removed from consideration for the Innovate, Design and Excellence Awards.
Step two: scoring the rubric
Fully Developed notebooks are scored against the 11-criterion rubric, ideally by two judges, and the guidance suggests about 10 to 20 minutes per notebook. Judges focus on relevant entries rather than reading every page, which is why a table of contents and clear headings pay off. A longer notebook is not automatically a better one; the REC Foundation's own best-practices session says so directly.
Step three: the interview and the deliberation
The judging process overview says every team must be offered an interview, and all interviews are scored with a rubric. For the Design and Innovate Awards, the notebook ranking is factored into the deliberations, and performance information is added to Design Award finalists to pick Excellence Award finalists. Your notebook and your interview should tell the same story, in the students' own words.
Which awards need a notebook
The 2025-26 Guide to Judging lists the Innovate, Design, Excellence, Amaze, Think, Create and Build Awards as notebook-judged awards. The Innovate Award also requires the Innovate Award Submission Form, placed right behind the cover page or in a clearly marked section, describing one aspect of your design.
2. The Rubric, Criterion by Criterion
The 2025-26 rubric splits into two pages: six Engineering Design Process criteria and five Format and Content criteria. Each is scored Emerging (0-1), Proficient (2-3) or Expert (4-5). Here is what Expert looks like for each, and the habit that gets you there.
| Rubric criterion | What an Expert (4-5 points) entry shows | Notebook habit that earns it |
|---|---|---|
| Identify the Problem / Design Goals | Goals, criteria and constraints defined in detail at the start of each design cycle, with justification | Open every cycle with a "Problem" page: what you need, how you will measure it, what limits you |
| Brainstorm Solutions | Several solutions explored and explained; outside ideas cited | Sketch at least three options before building; credit any idea you saw elsewhere |
| Select Best Solution | Reasoning explained for all significant design decisions | Use a scored decision matrix and write one paragraph on why the winner won |
| Build and Program the Solution | Steps recorded well enough for a reader to follow and recreate the design | Labeled CAD or sketches, part counts, gear ratios, and code with comments |
| Original Testing of Solutions | All test steps and results recorded, method explained, done by the team, conclusions drawn | Data tables with every trial, not just averages, plus a "So what?" line |
| Repeat Design Process | Multiple cycles, with setbacks, learning and alternatives shown | Keep the failures. A cycle that ends in "this didn't work" still counts |
| Independent Inquiry | Independent inquiry from the start; it is clear which ideas came from students | Mark student-originated ideas and cite everything else |
| Usability & Completeness | Full history clear enough to recreate; recent entries match the robot at the event | Update the notebook the week of the event, not the month before |
| Originality & Quality | Mostly original; citations relevant; long citations moved to appendices | Summarize sources in your own words and park long references at the back |
| Organization / Readability | Table of contents and clear organization (color coding, tabs); little extraneous content | Keep a running table of contents and a color key on page one |
| Record of Team & Project Management | Assignments, meetings and resources recorded; entries dated with student names | Date every entry and list who was there and who did what |
The first four criteria are your gate
Identify the Problem, Brainstorm, Select Best Solution, and Build and Program carry the Fully Developed threshold. If you only fix one thing this week, make sure every design cycle opens with a stated goal and constraints, shows more than one idea, explains why you chose the winner, and records how you built it. Those four pages per cycle are the backbone.
Testing is where most notebooks fall short
"We tested it and it worked better" scores Emerging. The best-practices guidance asks for the steps, the team's own original results and the conclusions drawn from them, with the full data rather than a summary. Its example records ten individual trials per intake design along with the averages. Ten trials is a good rule: it is enough to show a pattern and short enough that students will actually do it.
Repeat Design Process rewards honesty
An Expert score requires multiple design cycles with setbacks and lessons learned. The Emerging description includes notebooks that show "no setbacks" or appear curated. Keep the failed intake. Keep the autonomous routine that drove into the wall. Write what went wrong and what you changed. Judges are explicitly told to flag anomalies such as a polished robot design that appears with no design process behind it.
3. A Notebook System That Works for Real Teams
The teams that win notebook awards are not the ones with the best handwriting. They are the ones with a routine that produces an entry every meeting. Here is the system we teach in our VEX classes.
The page template
Every page, paper or digital, should carry the basics the REC Foundation recommends: a page number, a descriptive title, the date, and the team members who were there. Then build each design cycle from these pages:
- Problem: the goal, how you will measure success (for example, "intake 3 objects in under 5 seconds"), and constraints such as size limits, motor budget and time.
- Brainstorm: at least three sketched options with pros and cons. Hand-drawn sketches are fine and show student ownership.
- Decision: a decision matrix that scores each option against your criteria, plus a short paragraph explaining the choice.
- Build log: labeled drawings or CAD screenshots, gear ratios, motor assignments, and the code with comments.
- Test: the test procedure, a table with every trial, the average, and a one-line conclusion.
- Reflect: what worked, what failed, and what the next cycle will change.
Paper or digital?
Either works, and the rubric is the same. The REC Foundation best-practices session lists Google Docs, Google Slides, PowerPoint and Word as acceptable digital formats. The event partner decides the submission format for each event, so a digital notebook may need to be printed and a paper notebook may need to be scanned. Digital notebooks are submitted as an unlocked, password-free link on RobotEvents.com, with a PDF under 500 MB recommended. On paper, cross out mistakes with a single line instead of tearing out pages, and never edit or replace old entries after the fact.
Student-written, no AI, credit your sources
This is where teams lose awards entirely. The guidance says generative AI may not be used to create or organize notebook content, and that content must come from current students on the team. Adults can teach the template; they cannot write, rewrite or "clean up" entries. Cite outside ideas, including a mechanism you saw in a video. Teams from the same organization should not share notebook content. Academic dishonesty can remove a team from judged awards.
Divide the work so it actually gets done
Rotate a notebook role each meeting so no single student becomes the scribe for the season. The builder writes the build log, the programmer documents code changes, and the driver writes up practice results. End every meeting with a five-minute notebook check: is today's page dated, titled and does it list who was there? That habit alone fixes the Record of Team and Project Management criterion.
Conclusion
An award-winning VEX engineering notebook is not a scrapbook and not a novel. It is a dated, honest record of students solving problems: goals, options, decisions, builds, test data and the next try. Clear the Fully Developed bar on the first four criteria, back your choices with real data, keep your failures, and make sure the latest pages match the robot you bring to the event. Do that consistently and the Design Award stops being a mystery.
Want hands-on coaching? Our in-store VEX classes in Cumming cover building, VEXcode programming and engineering notebook habits that hold up in front of judges. Contact us about upcoming VEX classes or browse more guides on our Robotics & VEX blog.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many points is the VEX engineering notebook rubric worth?
The 2025-26 Engineering Notebook Rubric has 11 criteria, each scored from 0 to 5, for a maximum of 55 points. Judges use the score to sort notebooks, then make final award decisions qualitatively.
What makes a VEX notebook Fully Developed?
A Fully Developed notebook is a complete record of the design process with detailed drawings, test results, problem descriptions and chosen solutions. It must score at least 2 points on each of the first four rubric criteria to stay in consideration for the Innovate, Design and Excellence Awards.
Can a VEX engineering notebook be digital?
Yes. Digital notebooks in formats like Google Docs, Slides, PowerPoint or Word are judged with the same rubric as paper ones. The event partner sets the submission format, so be ready to print a digital notebook or scan a paper one.
Can we use ChatGPT or other AI tools to write our notebook?
No. The REC Foundation's guidance prohibits using generative AI to create or organize engineering notebook content. Entries must be written by the current students on the team.
Do we need a notebook to win the Excellence Award?
Yes. The Excellence Award is a notebook-judged award, and Excellence finalists come from the Design Award finalists with robot performance factored in.
How often should we write in the notebook?
Every meeting. Each entry should be dated, titled, page-numbered and list the students present. Regular entries also protect you from the large time gaps that cost points on the Usability and Completeness criterion.
