This is a follow-up to 1853 where we received this guidance:
Teams that attempt to stack multiple features or attributes into a single submission should have their submissions removed from consideration.
Could you provide some deeper guidance on what we can consider a "feature"? For example, we had a team submit a creative mechanism for performing an action using components A, B and C. Each component served a purpose in ensuring the success of the mechanism, and provided no interesting benefit without the other components. If any of A, B or C failed, the overall mechanism would fail. Moreover, the team demonstrated coordination between the components in the programming logic. The team submitted this mechanism as a single innovation.
Another example is a PTO drivetrain: it's made up of (A) a pneumatic feature that moves a transfer gear, as well as (B)a novel physical linkage between left and right sets of gears, but also (C) software that determines whether the left or right (or both) cylinders should be activated depending on an algorithm. Clearly this mechanism only works when A, B and C work together. Yet, a reading of the Innovate Award guidance might lead some judges to dismiss this as "stacked".
A real world example might be offering FSD ("Full Self-Driving") in a vehicle as an innovation which includes hardware and software involving LiDAR, accelerometers and cameras. Note that other components are clearly necessary for the proper function of FSD, like wheels, suspension and brake lights, but those are not vital to the innovative aspect of the design, and thus should not be included. Nevertheless, by a strict definition of "stack multiple features" one might dismiss FSD as a "stack" and thus not qualified to be considered an "innovation", insisting that only a single feature of the FSD stack be considered.
Would these examples be a "stack" of multiple features, and thus disqualifying?
Or can we consider these each a single innovation that happens to involve the interplay of many components? Perhaps if we say that if it can be shown that (1) all sub-components are vital and necessary to the innovation, including software features, and (2) each subcomponent contributes meaningfully to the desired outcome of the innovative design, then it's OK to consider the entire set as a single innovation?
Thank you.