Panel
An accountable jury panel
The Chennai final used independent scoring, declared conflicts and documented judgement.
Jury
The people accountable for the outcomes.
AI wrote reports; people made the decisions. The Season 2 jury verified selections and judged the physical final in person at RIT.
How the Jury Works
Independence by design.
Blind-first
Score before seeing AI
Human evaluators record their own scores before viewing AI numbers, keeping human judgement genuinely independent.
Conflicts
Declared and enforced
Jurors declare conflicts of interest and never score teams they are connected to.
Variance
Disagreement is a feature
Significant AI–human score differences trigger moderation review rather than silent averaging.
At the Finals
What the jury looks for on stage.
They probed
- Did the demo run live, on demand?
- Could every member explain their contribution?
- Why AI — and why this AI — for this problem?
- What would break first at scale?
They rewarded
- Working software over polished slides
- Honest limitations over inflated claims
- Measured impact over projected impact
- Teams that engaged with three locks of feedback
The Season 2 jury process combined independent scoring, conflict declarations and live examination of finalist demonstrations at Rajalakshmi Institute of Technology.
Working proof took the stage at RIT.
The Season 2 jury judged what teams could demonstrate, explain and defend in person.
View Season 2