The evaluation criteria involve:

Challenge Definition:  Does the candidature express a clear and deep understanding of a certain existing challenge and proposes a solution? Is it addressing a clear idea?

5 = The candidature has clearly defined the problem and demonstrates a deep understanding of how the idea fills the need

3 = The candidature is clear on the problem, but not articulate on how the idea meets the need (or vice versa)

1 = The candidature is unclear or demonstrates a limited understanding of the problem

Target Definition:  Does the candidature define its targeted audience well? Does the candidature express a clear understanding of its targets’ needs?

5 = The candidature has properly identified and clearly defined the target, reaching out and listening to a range of potential stakeholders in effective ways, learning from their experiences, and making significant adjustments when necessary.

3 = The candidate has conducted some discovery and has made some adjustments based on what they have learned.

1 = The candidate has not conducted significant (or effective) discovery about the target and its needs.

Method Definition:  Has the candidature clearly defined a method or a solution to an existing challenge? Is the value proposition clear? Is the method implemented clear and effective?

5 = The candidate has a clearly defined solution that is well matched to target needs.

3 = The candidate has a clear solution, but is not clear on how it meets the needs.

1 = The candidature has an unclear method definition.

Innovation or uniqueness: Is the solution presented distinctive or fundamentally different from existing approaches? 

5 = Breakthrough innovation that potentially changes how the impact is achieved; generates enthusiasm and support.

3 = Moderately innovative; different but not game-changing.

1 = Interesting idea, but not fundamentally or distinctively innovative.

Sustainability:  Is the candidate introducting a sustainable and innovative solution?

5 = The candidature displays a solid plan to make the operations sustainable.

3 = The candidate has thought about how to make the operations sustainable, but still has significant gaps in its plan.

1 = The candidate does not have a viable plan for how to sustain the operations.

Potential for social impact:  Does the candidature clearly have an impact in the society? Does the solution make life better for the targeted population? How much potential exists for scaling the candidate's social impact?

5 = The candidature has clearly defined the potential for exceptional impact.

3 = The candidature demonstrates a believable impact on a modest scale.

1 = The candidature demonstrates unclear or limited impact.