Fictional demonstration — invented competition, organizer and quotations. Not a real document.

Sample report · Fictional

Halden Bay Harbour Reading Room

Municipality of Halden Bay (fictional)

Compare samples

Location: Halden Bay, Northmark (fictional)
Type: Open
Deadline: 30 Apr 2026
Currency: EUR
Methodology: v1.0
Generated: 15 Jan 2026
Sources: Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdfPDF · 24 pages · 61,200 characters

Scores

Score based on available evidence

Overall

90/100

Mean of the three perspectives90/100

Strong documented conditions

Evidence coverage15/15 criteria · 100%

Coverage measures how many criteria could be assessed from the documents — not how favourable they are.

A. Who competes?90/100

Strong documented conditions5/5 criteria assessable

B. Who decides?95/100

Strong documented conditions5/5 criteria assessable

C. Who benefits?85/100

Strong documented conditions5/5 criteria assessable

A high score reflects favourable documented conditions. It is not a guarantee of fairness, a legal opinion or a judgement of design quality.

Strengths (15)

Eligibility proportionality. Open to registered architects; students and recent graduates may enter in teams led by a registered architect.
Accessibility. No entry fee; registration online; submissions accepted in English or Northmarkish.
Submission burden. Stage one is capped at two A1 sheets and a 600-word statement; models are not accepted.
Compensation. Each of five shortlisted teams receives EUR 18,000 for stage two, paid within 30 days of submission.
Clarity of information. Dated timetable, written Q&A with answers published to all registrants.
Jury transparency. Seven jurors and two alternates named with professions; four are architects.
Independence. Independent majority and written conflict-of-interest declarations; related parties excluded.
Anonymity. Anonymity by six-digit code until the jury report is signed, including stage two.
Evaluation criteria. Four criteria listed in descending order of importance; no numerical weights.
Accountability. Reasoned jury report published online; written feedback to shortlisted teams; complaints procedure.
Reward transparency. Prizes stated; winner to be commissioned for design through tender documentation at a stated fee basis.
Intellectual property. Authors keep copyright; organizer may exhibit and publish with credit.
Public value. Beneficiaries identified (residents, schools, harbour workers); two public workshops held before the brief.
Delivery credibility. Construction budget approved by the council; construction subject to planning approval.
Participant value. All entries exhibited with credit; feedback for shortlisted teams only.

Documented concerns (0)

No criterion scored 0 or 1.

Missing information (0)

Every criterion could be assessed.

Criteria and evidence

Expand any criterion to see the quotation, reference and rationale.

A Who competes?

A1Eligibility proportionalityOpen to registered architects; students and recent graduates may enter in teams led by a registered architect.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“The competition is open to architects registered in any EEA country. Graduates of less than five years may participate as part of a team led by a registered architect.”
p. 4 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Requirements are linked to professional registration only; team-ups are explicitly allowed. No justification is given for excluding non-EEA registration.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: Requirements are largely tied to the stated scope; minor unexplained thresholds remain, and partnering or later qualification is allowed.
A2AccessibilityNo entry fee; registration online; submissions accepted in English or Northmarkish.4/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Participation is free of charge. Registration is completed online. Entries may be submitted in English or Northmarkish.”
p. 5 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Free participation with clear, accessible language conditions.
Rubric level
4 · Strong: No fee (or fee waivers), and registration, language and submission conditions are explicit and accessible.
A3Submission burdenStage one is capped at two A1 sheets and a 600-word statement; models are not accepted.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Stage one submissions shall consist of no more than two A1 sheets and an explanatory text of up to 600 words. Physical models will not be accepted.”
p. 9 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Explicit caps suit an ideas stage. Stage-two deliverables include a cost estimate, which is relatively demanding.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: Deliverables are proportionate with explicit limits (e.g. number of sheets), with minor issues.
A4CompensationEach of five shortlisted teams receives EUR 18,000 for stage two, paid within 30 days of submission.4/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Each of the five teams invited to stage two will receive a fee of EUR 18,000 (excl. VAT), payable within 30 days of a complete submission.”
p. 11 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Stage-two development is paid at a stated amount with payment terms.
Rubric level
4 · Strong: Everyone asked for substantial development receives a stated fee proportionate to the work, with payment terms.
A5Clarity of informationDated timetable, written Q&A with answers published to all registrants.4/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Questions may be submitted until 12 February 2026. All questions and answers will be published anonymously to all registered participants by 19 February 2026.”
p. 6 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Timetable and clarification process are explicit and shared.
Rubric level
4 · Strong: All key items are explicit, with dated milestones and a clarification process whose answers are shared with all participants.

B Who decides?

B1Jury transparencySeven jurors and two alternates named with professions; four are architects.4/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“The jury consists of seven members, four of whom are practising architects, and two alternates. Names and affiliations are listed in Appendix B.”
p. 7 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Full disclosure of members, alternates and qualifications.
Rubric level
4 · Strong: All members and alternates are named with professional qualifications, including the share of design professionals.
B2IndependenceIndependent majority and written conflict-of-interest declarations; related parties excluded.4/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“A majority of jurors are independent of the Municipality. All jurors sign a declaration of no conflict of interest. Employees, partners and relatives of jurors are excluded from participation.”
p. 7 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Explicit independence and exclusion rules.
Rubric level
4 · Strong: An independent majority, declared conflicts of interest and exclusion rules for related parties are all stated.
B3AnonymityAnonymity by six-digit code until the jury report is signed, including stage two.4/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Entries are identified only by a six-digit code. Anonymity is maintained in both stages until the jury report has been signed.”
p. 10 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Procedure and duration are explained, covering both stages.
Rubric level
4 · Strong: A detailed anonymity procedure is stated, lasting until the jury decision, including how dialogue stages are handled.
B4Evaluation criteriaFour criteria listed in descending order of importance; no numerical weights.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Entries will be assessed against the following criteria, listed in descending order of importance: architectural quality; relationship to the harbour; accessibility and inclusion; feasibility within budget.”
p. 8 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Order of importance is published; stage-specific application is not described.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: Criteria are listed in an explicit order of importance.
B5AccountabilityReasoned jury report published online; written feedback to shortlisted teams; complaints procedure.4/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“The jury report, including the reasoning for each shortlisted entry, will be published on the competition website. Shortlisted teams receive written feedback. Complaints may be lodged within 10 days under Section 14.”
p. 12 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Documented publication, feedback and review procedure.
Rubric level
4 · Strong: A reasoned jury report is published, and feedback and complaint or review procedures are documented.

C Who benefits?

C1Reward transparencyPrizes stated; winner to be commissioned for design through tender documentation at a stated fee basis.4/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“The Municipality intends to commission the winning team for design services up to and including tender documentation, with fees based on the Northmark Architects' Fee Guide.”
p. 13 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Prizes and commission scope and fee basis clearly distinguished.
Rubric level
4 · Strong: Prizes, payments and the follow-on commission (scope, conditions, fee basis) are clearly distinguished.
C2Intellectual propertyAuthors keep copyright; organizer may exhibit and publish with credit.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Copyright remains with the authors. The Municipality may exhibit and publish all entries with credit to the authors.”
p. 14 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Proportionate licence; further-use terms for non-winning entries are not addressed.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: Authorship is retained and use is limited to exhibition or publication with credit; minor gaps.
C3Public valueBeneficiaries identified (residents, schools, harbour workers); two public workshops held before the brief.4/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“The reading room is intended for residents, local schools and harbour workers. The brief reflects two public workshops held in autumn 2025, summarised in Appendix C.”
p. 3 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Specific beneficiaries and documented engagement.
Rubric level
4 · Strong: Beneficiaries, objectives and community engagement or measurable commitments are all identified.
C4Delivery credibilityConstruction budget approved by the council; construction subject to planning approval.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“A construction budget of EUR 4.2 million was approved by the Municipal Council in November 2025. Construction is subject to planning approval.”
p. 3 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Funding and conditions stated honestly; post-competition timeline is not detailed.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: Funding status and next steps are documented, with minor gaps.
C5Participant valueAll entries exhibited with credit; feedback for shortlisted teams only.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“All entries will be exhibited at the Halden Bay Library with credit to the authors.”
p. 12 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Credited exhibition for all; feedback limited to shortlisted teams.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: Recognition and exhibition or publication with credit are stated; minor gaps.

Key facts

Extracted key facts with references
Fact	Value	Reference	Status
Eligibility	Registered EEA architects; graduate teams led by a registered architect.	p. 4 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Entry fee	None€0	p. 5 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Submission requirements	Stage 1: two A1 sheets, 600 words. Stage 2: design development and cost estimate.	p. 9 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Compensation	EUR 18,000 per stage-two team (5 teams).€18,000	p. 11 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Jury members	7 jurors (4 architects) + 2 alternates, named in Appendix B.	p. 7 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Jury independence	Independent majority; declarations; related parties excluded.	p. 7 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Anonymity	Coded entries, anonymous until the jury report is signed.	p. 10 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Publication of evaluation records	Reasoned jury report published online.	p. 12 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Prizes & commission	Commission through tender documentation; fee per national guide.	p. 13 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Intellectual property	Copyright retained; credited exhibition and publication.	p. 14 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found
Public benefit commitments	Residents, schools, harbour workers; two public workshops.	p. 3 · Fictional brief — Harbour Reading Room.pdf	Found

CRIT v1.0 evaluates documented competition conditions using 15 criteria. It is a transparent analytical model, not an official accreditation or validated scientific standard.