Methodology · v1.0

How CRIT assesses

CRIT is a transparent analytical model for reading competition documents. It is not an official accreditation or a validated scientific standard.

What is assessed

CRIT evaluates the documented conditions of an architectural competition: what the brief, rules and annexes actually say. It asks three questions — who competes, who decides, who benefits.

It does not judge architectural design quality, guarantee fairness, determine legality or certify organizers. Conditions that exist in practice but are not written down cannot be seen by CRIT.

Perspectives and weights

Fifteen criteria are grouped into three perspectives of five. Each criterion has equal weight within its perspective, and each perspective contributes one third of the overall score.

A · 33⅓%

Who competes?

A1 Eligibility proportionality · 20%
A2 Accessibility · 20%
A3 Submission burden · 20%
A4 Compensation · 20%
A5 Clarity of information · 20%

B · 33⅓%

Who decides?

B1 Jury transparency · 20%
B2 Independence · 20%
B3 Anonymity · 20%
B4 Evaluation criteria · 20%
B5 Accountability · 20%

C · 33⅓%

Who benefits?

C1 Reward transparency · 20%
C2 Intellectual property · 20%
C3 Public value · 20%
C4 Delivery credibility · 20%
C5 Participant value · 20%

Scoring scale

Each criterion receives one of six values, using the criterion-specific rubric below.

0: Strongly unfavourable — explicit evidence of strongly unfavourable conditions.
1: Substantial weaknesses — explicit evidence of substantial weaknesses.
2: Mixed / partly adequate — mixed or partly adequate documented conditions.
3: Mostly adequate — mostly adequate conditions with minor documented weaknesses.
4: Strong — clear evidence of strong conditions.
?: Unknown — insufficient evidence to assess.

How scores are calculated

Category score = sum of known criterion scores ÷ (4 × number of known criteria) × 100.

A category score is shown only when at least 3 of its 5 criteria are assessable.

Overall score = arithmetic mean of the three category scores. It is shown only when all three category scores are available and at least 12 of 15 criteria are assessable. Otherwise CRIT shows “Insufficient evidence” and explains what is missing.

Evidence coverage = assessable criteria ÷ 15 × 100. It is always shown separately from scores: a report can have high coverage and a low score, or the reverse.

All numeric results are labelled “Score based on available evidence”. A high score is never a guarantee of fairness.

Missing data

A missing statement is marked Unknown, not scored zero, and is excluded from the denominator. An explicit statement that a protection or benefit will not be provided can support an unfavourable score.

Unknown and ambiguous criteria generate suggested questions to ask the organizer. Clarity of information (A5) is judged on the documents supplied; if only part of the brief is supplied, mark it Unknown.

AI and evidence

AI is used only to propose extracted facts and criterion assessments from the documents you supply. Each proposal includes a criterion, a proposed score or Unknown, a short rationale, a supporting quotation, a source reference, an evidence status and questions for your review.

Every proposed quotation is checked against the source text in application code. If it cannot be found verbatim, it is removed and the criterion becomes Unknown. A numeric score without a quotation is not accepted. Documents are treated as untrusted material: instructions inside a brief are never followed, and external knowledge is not used.

You review and can correct every value. Corrections are logged with your explanation and are distinguished from source-based findings. Scores are then computed deterministically by the rules above — never by the AI.

Criterion rubrics

The same rubric is applied to every assessment, whether proposed by AI or entered manually.

AWho competes?

Eligibility proportionality

Are qualification and experience requirements justified by the stated scope?

0: Requirements explicitly exclude most qualified practitioners (e.g. very high turnover or many comparable built projects for a modest scope) with no team-up or alternative route.
1: Substantial thresholds (turnover, years of practice, reference projects) clearly exceed what the stated scope appears to need, with little or no justification.
2: Some requirements are justified by scope while others appear disproportionate or are unexplained.
3: Requirements are largely tied to the stated scope; minor unexplained thresholds remain, and partnering or later qualification is allowed.
4: Requirements are explicitly justified by the scope and open to emerging practices, e.g. qualifications required only of the winner or team formation permitted.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Accessibility

Are fees and participation conditions clearly stated and reasonably accessible?

0: A high entry fee or costly mandatory conditions (e.g. paid site visits, travel) are explicitly required with no reductions, refunds or waivers.
1: A significant fee or cost is stated with few or no reductions, or key participation conditions are stated in restrictive terms.
2: A moderate fee is stated, or the fee is low but other participation conditions (language, registration, format) are unclear.
3: Participation is free or low-cost and conditions are clearly stated, with minor gaps.
4: No fee (or fee waivers), and registration, language and submission conditions are explicit and accessible.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Submission burden

Are required deliverables proportionate to the competition stage and schedule?

0: Extensive deliverables (e.g. physical models, detailed technical drawings, cost plans) are required at an early, unpaid stage on a short schedule.
1: Deliverables substantially exceed what the stage or schedule appears to justify.
2: Some deliverables are proportionate while others are excessive, or limits on scope are unclear.
3: Deliverables are proportionate with explicit limits (e.g. number of sheets), with minor issues.
4: Deliverables are explicitly capped and matched to stage and schedule; further development is requested only from shortlisted, paid teams.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Compensation

Is substantial design development compensated, especially in later stages?

0: Substantial design development is explicitly required without any payment, e.g. an unpaid detailed second stage.
1: Compensation is stated but is token relative to the work requested.
2: Some compensation is stated, but it is unclear whether it covers later-stage effort or who receives it.
3: Shortlisted or later-stage participants receive a stated fee; minor gaps remain (e.g. payment timing).
4: Everyone asked for substantial development receives a stated fee proportionate to the work, with payment terms.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Clarity of information

Are the brief, timetable, criteria and clarification process explicit?

0: The documents contradict themselves on key items or explicitly withhold the timetable or the rules.
1: Most key items (timetable, rules, clarification process) are vague or only implied.
2: Some key items are explicit; others are vague.
3: Brief, timetable and clarification process are explicit, with minor gaps.
4: All key items are explicit, with dated milestones and a clarification process whose answers are shared with all participants.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

BWho decides?

Jury transparency

Are jury members and their relevant qualifications disclosed?

0: The documents explicitly state that the jury will not be disclosed, or that the organizer decides alone without a jury.
1: A jury is mentioned but members are undisclosed (e.g. 'to be announced') or only organizer staff are named.
2: Some members are named, but roles or qualifications are partly missing.
3: All members are named with roles; minor gaps (e.g. alternates or qualifications).
4: All members and alternates are named with professional qualifications, including the share of design professionals.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Independence

Are independence safeguards and conflict-of-interest procedures stated?

0: Documents explicitly allow conflicted participants or a decision body fully controlled by the organizer with no safeguards.
1: The jury is mostly organizer-affiliated and conflict-of-interest provisions are absent or weak.
2: Some safeguards are stated but they are partial.
3: An independent majority or explicit conflict-of-interest rules are stated, with minor gaps.
4: An independent majority, declared conflicts of interest and exclusion rules for related parties are all stated.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Anonymity

Are anonymity protections and their duration explained?

0: Evaluation is explicitly non-anonymous where entries are compared, or entrant identity must appear on submissions.
1: Anonymity is claimed but undermined by stated procedures (e.g. identified presentations before the decision without safeguards).
2: Anonymity is stated without explaining protections or duration.
3: The anonymity procedure is explained (codes, sealed identification) with minor gaps on duration.
4: A detailed anonymity procedure is stated, lasting until the jury decision, including how dialogue stages are handled.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Evaluation criteria

Are assessment criteria and their weighting or order of importance published?

0: No criteria are given, or the decision is explicitly at the organizer's sole discretion.
1: Criteria are vague or generic, with no weighting or order.
2: Criteria are listed, without weighting or order of importance.
3: Criteria are listed in an explicit order of importance.
4: Criteria are listed with weights or explicit order, and it is stated how they apply at each stage.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Accountability

Are decisions, jury reports and feedback procedures documented and accessible?

0: Documents state that no jury report or reasons will be provided and that decisions cannot be questioned.
1: Only the announcement of winners is mentioned.
2: A jury report is mentioned, but access to it is limited or unclear.
3: A jury report is published or shared with all participants; minor gaps (e.g. no individual feedback).
4: A reasoned jury report is published, and feedback and complaint or review procedures are documented.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

CWho benefits?

Reward transparency

Are prizes, payments and any later commission clearly distinguished?

0: Documents reserve the right not to award prizes or commissions without stated conditions, or rewards are explicitly undefined.
1: Prize amounts are unclear, or a commission is suggested only vaguely.
2: Prizes are stated, but the relationship to any commission is unclear.
3: Prizes and payments are stated and the commission intention is explained, with minor gaps.
4: Prizes, payments and the follow-on commission (scope, conditions, fee basis) are clearly distinguished.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Intellectual property

Are authorship, licensing and rights transfers explicit and proportionate?

0: All entrants must transfer copyright or all rights without compensation.
1: Broad rights transfer, or unlimited use of non-winning entries, is required.
2: Authorship is retained but the licence scope is unclear or broad.
3: Authorship is retained and use is limited to exhibition or publication with credit; minor gaps.
4: Authorship is retained; use is limited and credited, and any further use requires agreement and payment.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Public value

Are intended beneficiaries and public or community objectives identified?

0: Documents explicitly exclude public or community considerations for a project presented as serving the public.
1: Public benefit is asserted only in generic or promotional terms.
2: Some beneficiaries or objectives are identified, but vaguely.
3: Beneficiaries and objectives are identified; engagement or concrete measures are partial.
4: Beneficiaries, objectives and community engagement or measurable commitments are all identified.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Delivery credibility

Are funding, next steps and implementation intentions documented without implying construction is guaranteed?

0: Documents contradict themselves on implementation, or explicitly state there is no intention to build while presenting the project as real.
1: Implementation is implied but no funding or next steps are documented.
2: Some next steps are stated; funding status is unclear.
3: Funding status and next steps are documented, with minor gaps.
4: Funding, timeline and next steps are documented, and the conditions on which construction depends are stated honestly.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Participant value

Are recognition, feedback, exhibition or other participant benefits clearly defined?

0: Documents explicitly rule out recognition or credit, or allow entries to be used without attribution.
1: Benefits are minimal or limited to the winner.
2: Some benefits (e.g. an exhibition) are mentioned vaguely.
3: Recognition and exhibition or publication with credit are stated; minor gaps.
4: Defined recognition for participants, credited publication or exhibition, and feedback are all stated.
?: Unknown — the documents do not address this criterion.

Limitations

The framework reflects CRIT's analytical choices. Weights and thresholds are transparent but not empirically validated.
Only supplied documents are read. Official URLs are kept as reference links; their contents are not retrieved.
Scanned PDFs without a text layer cannot be read; paste the text or upload a searchable version.
AI extraction can miss or misread passages. Human review of every finding is part of the method.
Monetary amounts in different currencies are never converted or compared as equivalent.
Good documentation does not prove good practice, and poor documentation does not prove bad faith.

Versions

Current version: v1.0. Each saved report stores the methodology version used to generate it, so future changes never silently alter existing assessments.

See the framework applied to three fictional competitions