How this is scored
Five stages of the engineering design process, plus one separate score for how far the robot walks. There's no formal presentation on this project. Communicate is your build log and the gallery walk.
Two kinds of score
Stages 1 through 4 are team scores. They judge shared work: your notebook, your linkage checks, your Onshape model, your prototypes, and your change tracking. Everyone on the team gets the same number.
Stage 5 is yours alone. Same build log, same robot, individual scores. At the gallery walk, each of you explains the project on your own. Two people on the same team can get different Communicate scores.
Where the evidence comes from. Stages 1 through 4 are scored from your build log and notebook. If it isn't in there, it can't be scored.
How this matches the six-step process. Pick a Solution is scored inside Research and Brainstorm. Test and Evaluate is scored as Iterate.
Your daily work — safety, cleanup, effort, organization — isn't scored here at all. That lives in the daily standards.
Define the Problem
Do you understand what Fenwick asked for?
Restates the client's ask in your own words. Names every rule: 2 to 6 legs, no wheels, one TT motor, four 1.2 V AAs, a switch, 1/8 in wood links, standoff joints, the size limit. Says which rule limits your design most, and why. Explains how the run is measured and what that means for the design — it has to walk straight.
Repeats the brief accurately but without interpretation. Rules are listed, not weighed. How the run is measured is missing or vague.
The problem is stated vaguely or incorrectly. Rules are missing. No clear idea of what the robot has to do.
Research and Brainstorm
Did you explore leg linkages, check them, and pick one for a reason?
Existing walkers researched, with sources. Several leg ideas sketched in the notebook and built in the Linkage Designer, with a screenshot of each foot path. The chosen leg passes every design check with the work shown: M = 1, Grashof on every loop with the crank, worst transmission angle, and stance over half a turn. The choice is made by comparing ideas against the hook, not by gut feeling.
A few ideas, but thin research. Some checks are done, or done without numbers. The choice is explained as a preference — "it looked cool."
One idea, copied or guessed. No checks. No reason for the choice.
Prototype
Does the design go from the simulator to a robot you can build?
An Onshape model of the links, gears, and chassis, assembled with mates. Hole centers match the link lengths from the simulator. The gear train carries the motor to every leg, with the ratio written down. Legs are phased on purpose. The switch is wired between the batteries and the motor. CAD screenshots and first-build photos are in the build log.
A working model with gaps — missing parts or mates, hole spacing that doesn't match the linkage, or a gear ratio nobody worked out.
A basic model or none. Parts were cut by trial and error without a drawing.
Iterate
Did you track every version, and change things for a reason?
A change-tracking entry for every prototype version: a photo, what failed, your guess at the cause written before the fix, the change with numbers, and the 15-second distance. Version numbers match the Onshape part names. Includes at least one change that didn't work and what it taught you.
The major versions are recorded, but some changes lack a reason, numbers, or a test distance. Only the changes that worked are reported.
Little evidence of iteration. A photo of the final robot and not much else.
Communicate
Your build log and the gallery walk.
Uses the build log to tell the story in order: notebook pages, prototype versions, CAD screenshots, and build photos. Explains how your linkage turns the motor's circle into a step, using crank, coupler, rocker, and ground correctly. Justifies at least one decision with a number from class. Answers a visitor's question without a teammate stepping in.
Shows the robot and describes what the team did, but the reasons are general — "it worked better." The build log is missing one kind of evidence, or you need a teammate to explain part of it.
Can't explain how the robot works. Major parts of the build log are missing.
What "a number from class" sounds like
This is the line between a 3 and a 5 on Communicate, so here it is out loud.
A 3: "Our robot kept getting stuck, so we changed the legs and it walked better."
A 5: "Version 2 bogged down at the same spot every turn. We checked the transmission angle with the crank at 0° and got 26°, way under 40. We changed the loop to the 6-2-5-4 shape from class and scaled it up 1.5 times to keep our stride. Now the worst angle is 51°. That's version 3, and it went from 40 cm to 72 cm in 15 seconds."
The walk is scored too
Separate from the five stages, the robot gets its own team score on test day. A brilliantly documented robot that barely moves still scores well on the rubric — but not here.
Covers Ground
How far does it walk in 15 seconds? Best of 3 runs.
Reaches the 90 cm benchmark, measured straight ahead from the start line to the rearmost foot. Walks on its own for the full 15 seconds after the switch goes on. Meets every rule on the overview.
Walks for the full 15 seconds but falls short of the benchmark. Or reaches it but misses one rule by a little — slightly over size, for example.
Stalls, tips over, falls apart, or barely moves. Or breaks a core rule: wheels, a second motor, other batteries, or no switch.