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

Sample report · Fictional

Riverside Market Hall Renewal

Corvel Urban Development Trust (fictional)

Compare samples

Location: Corvel, Westria (fictional)
Type: Restricted
Deadline: 12 Jun 2026
Currency: GBP
Methodology: v1.0
Generated: 15 Jan 2026
Sources: Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdfPDF · 18 pages · 40,300 characters

Scores

Score based on available evidence

Overall

56/100

Mean of the three perspectives56/100

Moderate documented conditions

Evidence coverage13/15 criteria · 87%

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

A. Who competes?55/100

Moderate documented conditions5/5 criteria assessable

B. Who decides?63/100

Moderate documented conditions4/5 criteria assessable

C. Who benefits?50/100

Moderate documented conditions4/5 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 (5)

Accessibility. No fee for pre-qualification; documents in English only.
Clarity of information. Timetable with dates; clarification questions by email, answers circulated to all shortlisted teams.
Jury transparency. Five panel members named with roles; qualifications not described.
Anonymity. Design submissions are anonymised before panel review; interviews follow the anonymous review.
Public value. Objectives for traders and residents stated; a consultation summary is referenced.

Documented concerns (2)

Compensation. Honorarium of GBP 3,000 per shortlisted team for the full design stage.
Intellectual property. The Trust may use ideas from all submissions without further payment.

Missing information (2)

B5Accountability — Unknown
C4Delivery credibility — Unknown

Questions to ask the organizer

Based on criteria that are unknown or ambiguous in the documents.

01Will the jury report and its reasoning be published or shared with all participants, and is there a review procedure?
02What are the prize amounts, and will the winner be commissioned — under which scope and conditions?
03Is the project funded, and what are the next steps after the competition?

Criteria and evidence

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

A Who competes?

A1Eligibility proportionalityPre-qualification requires three completed public buildings over GBP 5 million in ten years; consortia allowed.2/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Applicants must demonstrate at least three completed public buildings with a construction value above GBP 5 million within the last ten years. Consortia are permitted.”
p. 3 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Thresholds are high for a GBP 9 million renewal, but consortia offer a route for smaller practices.
Rubric level
2 · Mixed / partly adequate: Some requirements are justified by scope while others appear disproportionate or are unexplained.
A2AccessibilityNo fee for pre-qualification; documents in English only.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“There is no fee to apply. All documents and submissions must be in English.”
p. 4 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Free entry; language restriction is a minor limitation.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: Participation is free or low-cost and conditions are clearly stated, with minor gaps.
A3Submission burdenSix shortlisted teams submit four A1 boards, a 1:200 model and a cost plan within seven weeks.2/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Shortlisted teams shall submit four A1 boards, a physical model at 1:200 and an outline cost plan. The design stage runs for seven weeks.”
p. 8 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Demanding package for a short design stage; partially offset by the honorarium.
Rubric level
2 · Mixed / partly adequate: Some deliverables are proportionate while others are excessive, or limits on scope are unclear.
A4CompensationHonorarium of GBP 3,000 per shortlisted team for the full design stage.1/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Each shortlisted team will receive an honorarium of GBP 3,000 upon receipt of a compliant submission.”
p. 9 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
The amount is token relative to boards, a model and a cost plan.
Rubric level
1 · Substantial weaknesses: Compensation is stated but is token relative to the work requested.
A5Clarity of informationTimetable with dates; clarification questions by email, answers circulated to all shortlisted teams.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Clarification questions may be sent by email until 10 April 2026. Responses will be circulated to all shortlisted teams.”
p. 5 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Process is explicit; date of answer circulation is not specified.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: Brief, timetable and clarification process are explicit, with minor gaps.

B Who decides?

B1Jury transparencyFive panel members named with roles; qualifications not described.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“The evaluation panel comprises: the Trust's Chief Executive, the Trust's Director of Estates, a representative of the market traders' association, and two external architects (named in Annex 2).”
p. 6 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
All members named by role, but professional qualifications are not set out.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: All members are named with roles; minor gaps (e.g. alternates or qualifications).
B2IndependenceTwo of five panel members are external; conflict declarations required but no exclusion rules.2/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Panel members will declare any conflict of interest before the evaluation.”
p. 6 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Declarations are stated, but the Trust holds a majority and related-party exclusions are absent.
Rubric level
2 · Mixed / partly adequate: Some safeguards are stated but they are partial.
B3AnonymityDesign submissions are anonymised before panel review; interviews follow the anonymous review.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Design submissions will be anonymised by the competition secretary before review. Interviews with teams will take place after the anonymous evaluation has been recorded.”
p. 7 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Procedure explained; it is not stated whether the anonymous ranking can be changed after interviews.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: The anonymity procedure is explained (codes, sealed identification) with minor gaps on duration.
B4Evaluation criteriaCriteria listed without weights or order.2/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“Submissions will be evaluated on design quality, response to the market's heritage, sustainability, deliverability and team experience.”
p. 7 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Criteria published, but no weighting or order of importance.
Rubric level
2 · Mixed / partly adequate: Criteria are listed, without weighting or order of importance.
B5AccountabilityThe brief does not say whether a jury report or feedback will be provided.Unknown Not found
Supporting quotation
No quotation — insufficient evidence to assess.
User-provided information
Extracted from source
Rationale
No statement in the fictional brief addresses this criterion.
Rubric level
Unknown — excluded from the score denominator.

C Who benefits?

C1Reward transparencyHonoraria stated; the Trust 'may' appoint the winner, scope not defined.2/4 Ambiguous
Supporting quotation
“The Trust may appoint the winning team to develop the design further, subject to funding and procurement rules.”
p. 10 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Commission intention is conditional and its scope is undefined.
Rubric level
2 · Mixed / partly adequate: Prizes are stated, but the relationship to any commission is unclear.
C2Intellectual propertyThe Trust may use ideas from all submissions without further payment.1/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“By submitting, teams grant the Trust a perpetual licence to use ideas and material contained in any submission without further payment.”
p. 11 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Broad unpaid licence over non-winning entries.
Rubric level
1 · Substantial weaknesses: Broad rights transfer, or unlimited use of non-winning entries, is required.
C3Public valueObjectives for traders and residents stated; a consultation summary is referenced.3/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“The renewal shall retain affordable stalls for existing traders and provide a covered public space for the riverside community. A summary of the 2025 consultation is attached as Annex 4.”
p. 2 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Beneficiaries and objectives identified; commitments are not measurable.
Rubric level
3 · Mostly adequate: Beneficiaries and objectives are identified; engagement or concrete measures are partial.
C4Delivery credibilityFunding status is mentioned only as a condition; no budget approval or programme is stated.Unknown Not found
Supporting quotation
No quotation — insufficient evidence to assess.
User-provided information
Extracted from source
Rationale
No statement in the fictional brief addresses this criterion.
Rubric level
Unknown — excluded from the score denominator.
C5Participant valueAn exhibition of shortlisted schemes is 'intended'.2/4 Found
Supporting quotation
“It is intended that shortlisted schemes will be exhibited at the market.”
p. 10 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf
Extracted from source
Rationale
Benefit stated vaguely; no mention of credit or feedback.
Rubric level
2 · Mixed / partly adequate: Some benefits (e.g. an exhibition) are mentioned vaguely.

Key facts

Extracted key facts with references
Fact	Value	Reference	Status
Eligibility	Three public buildings > GBP 5m in 10 years; consortia allowed.	p. 3 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf	Found
Entry fee	None£0	p. 4 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf	Found
Submission requirements	4 A1 boards, 1:200 model, outline cost plan in 7 weeks.	p. 8 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf	Found
Compensation	GBP 3,000 per shortlisted team (6 teams).£3,000	p. 9 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf	Found
Jury members	5 panel members by role; 2 external architects.	p. 6 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf	Found
Jury independence	Conflict declarations; Trust majority.	p. 6 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf	Found
Anonymity	Anonymised review, interviews afterwards.	p. 7 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf	Found
Publication of evaluation records	Not stated	—	Not found
Prizes & commission	No prizes; possible appointment subject to funding.	p. 10 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf	Ambiguous
Intellectual property	Perpetual unpaid licence over all submissions.	p. 11 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.pdf	Found
Public benefit commitments	Affordable stalls for traders; covered public space.	p. 2 · Fictional brief — Riverside Market Hall.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.