Page 20 & 21, Guide to Judging:
The Engineering Notebook is consistent with the qualities demonstrated in the team interview and robot design.
If judges use this criterion as a way to eliminate a team from earning the Think Award, will this immediately remove them from contention from the Amaze, Build, and Create Awards?
The goal of this criterion is to add a level of validation that the contents of the Engineering Notebook match the robot and programming code that a team has brought to an event. It is not enough that a team simply have submitted an Engineering Notebook - the Engineering Notebook should be a valid representation of the student work and be in alignment with the information presented during the Team Interview, the physical robot, and the programming code used at the competition.
While it should not be taken as an automatic disqualification from multiple awards, a team submitting an Engineering Notebook that is inconsistent with their interview and robot should raise concerns and be taken into consideration for awards which include this requirement as appropriate. Much of the extent of how this criteria may impact multiple awards is dependent on what content in the notebook is inconsistent, and the degree of inconsistency. For making this determination, the reasoning of the event's Judging staff will discern what is appropriate and inform qualitative judgements accordingly.