The first of the key criteria for the Design Award in section 4 (pg 18) is
"Be at or near the top of Engineering Notebook Rubric rankings with a Fully Developed Notebook."
This criterion is repeated on the Award Descriptions for the Judges Room for the Design Award (pg 59), as well as the Judging Single Page Reference Sheet (pg 52).
On page 20, the description of the Innovate award says
"The team who earns the Innovate Award should be among the top contenders for the Design Award."
However, neither the key criteria on that page, on the Judging Single Page Reference Sheet, nor on the Award Description for the Judging Room for Innovate contains the language that Innovate winners should "Be at or near the top of Engineering Notebook Rubric rankings with a Fully Developed Notebook."
We know from page 28 that
"Only Fully Developed notebooks should be considered for the Innovate, Design, and Excellence Awards."
So despite not being listed in the key criteria, it's fairly clear that Innovate candidates must have a fully developed notebook.
However, it may be less clear whether or not the Innovate Award winner should be at or near the top of the notebook rankings. Which of these interpretations is correct?
1: Because "at or near the top of Engineering Notebook Rubric Rankings" is never listed in the key criteria for Innovate, it is not a criterion for the award.
2: Because Innovate winners should be "among the top contenders for the Design Award," and the Design Award criteria includes "at or near the top of Engineering Notebook Rubric Rankings," Innovate winners should also be near the top of notebook rubric rankings.