ADC Pro Judging Resource Supporting Evidence Guide

Purpose

The ADC Pro Evidence Guide provides examples of evidence judges may observe during the competition notebook review and team interview. These examples are intended to promote consistent judging by illustrating the types of evidence that support each evaluation criterion.

The examples in this guide are not requirements and should not be treated as a checklist. Teams may demonstrate the same competency in different ways based on their experience, resources, engineering decisions, and project goals.

Judges should evaluate the quality and relevance of the evidence, not the quantity of documentation or the number of examples presented.

• Important Note: The examples below represent possible forms of evidence, not required artifacts. Teams should document the evidence that is authentic and meaningful to their own work. Judges should not award additional credit based on the number of artifacts presented.

Communication & Technical Knowledge

Possible Competition Notebook Evidence

• Clear organization with dated entries.
• Technical terminology used correctly and appropriately. 
• Engineering decisions explained, including the rationale behind them.
• Testing, results and design rationale documented.
• Reflections that explain lessons learned.
• Well-labeled photos, diagrams, or illustrations that help explain the team’s work.
• Documentation written by students and reflecting their work and thinking.

Possible Team Interview Evidence

• Students explain concepts clearly and confidently, demonstrating genuine understanding of the subject matter. 
• Students accurately explain relevant drone operations, mission objectives, and technical concepts and the reasoning behind their decisions.
• Multiple team members participate and demonstrate knowledge of the team's work.  
• Students answer follow-up questions without relying on memorized responses.
• Students demonstrate ownership of the team's work and can explain what they did and why they did it.

Characteristics of Exemplary Performance

• Students communicate with confidence and accuracy.
• Documentation and interview responses are consistent and provide a clear picture of the team's work.
• Students explain both what they did and why they did it.
• Technical knowledge is evident across multiple team members.

Common Weaknesses

• One student answers every question while other team members have limited participation. 
• Students repeat memorized responses and have difficulty explaining their work or decisions. 
• Technical terms are used incorrectly or without demonstrating understanding. 
• Documentation lacks explanation or reflection. 

Team Organization, Leadership & Project Management

Possible Competition Notebook Evidence

• Team roles and responsibilities.
• Project timelines or schedules.
• Meeting notes.
• Task assignment.
• Planning tools or project-management systems.
• Evidence of changing responsibilities or priorities.
• Documentation of team decisions, the factors considered, and planning discussions.

Possible Team Interview Evidence

• Students describe their individual and shared responsibilities.
• Team members explain how decisions were made.
• Students discuss challenges and how responsibilities evolved throughout the season.
• Team members demonstrate awareness of one another's contributions.
• Students explain how the team collaborated to accomplish shared goals.
• Students explain how the team adapted its plans or priorities in response to challenges, testing, or changing circumstances.

Characteristics of Exemplary Performance

• Leadership is shared appropriately among team members.
• Students demonstrate effective collaboration and communication,
• Planning is intentional, organized, and adaptable.
• Team members understand the complete project, not only their individual role.
• Students can explain how the team responded to challenges or changing priorities. 

Common Weaknesses

• Roles and responsibilities are unclear.
• Planning appears reactive rather than intentional.
• Team members have little knowledge outside their assigned task.
• Documentation shows assignments but little evidence of collaboration or decision-making 
• Adult direction appears to drive team decisions.

Safety, Operations & Maintenance

Possible Competition Notebook Evidence

• Safety plans or procedures.
• Inspection checklist. 
• Maintenance logs.
• Repair records.
• Battery management procedures.
• Risk assessments.
• Operational checklists.
• FAA TRUST certificates or equivalent training documentation.
• Documentation of safety improvements or changes to procedures.
• Documentation of applicable drone regulations and how they affect team operations 

Possible Team Interview Evidence

• Students explain safety procedures.
• Students demonstrate understanding of operational risks.
• Students describe inspection and maintenance routines.
• Students explain troubleshooting and repair procedures.
• Students discuss how safety influenced engineering decisions.
• Students explain which drone regulations are important to their team's operations. 

Characteristics of Exemplary Performance

• Safety is integrated into daily team practices.
• Students understand why safety procedures and regulations exist.
• Maintenance is proactive and preventative rather than primarily reactive.
• Operational readiness is consistently emphasized before and during operations.

Common Weaknesses

• Safety receives little attention outside competition day.
• Maintenance occurs only after failures.
• Students cannot explain inspection or safety procedures.
• Risk management is poorly understood.

Data & Performance Analysis

Possible Competition Notebook Evidence

• Flight logs.
• Test results.
• Performance graphs, charts, or tables.
• Battery performance data.
• Timing records.
• Scoring or competition performance analysis.
• Iteration summaries showing how testing influenced changes.
• Documentation of testing results, lessons learned, and how the findings were used to make decisions or improvements.
• Documentation showing how data was used to improve engineering decisions, programming, mission strategy, maintenance, or overall performance.

Possible Team Interview Evidence

• Students explain how testing influenced improvements.
• Students reference specific performance data.
• Students compare different approaches.
• Students discuss unsuccessful tests and resulting changes.
• Students explain what the data showed and how it influenced their next steps.

Characteristics of Exemplary Performance

• Decisions are supported by evidence and data.
• Testing is systematic and purposeful.
• Students analyze results rather than simply collect data.
• Students use data to guide improvements.
• Reflection is continuous throughout the season.
• The team can explain how testing and competition results led to specific changes and whether those changes improved performance. 

Common Weaknesses

• Limited testing data.
• Data is collected but not analyzed or used. 
• Changes are based on opinion rather than evidence.
• Little reflection or evaluation occurs after testing.
• Improvements are made but not documented.
• The connection between data, decisions, and improvements is unclear.

Mission Analysis & Strategy

Possible Competition Notebook Evidence

• Mission objectives for alliance/teamwork, solo autonomous flight, and solo piloting.
• Strategy diagrams or planning notes.
• Flight path sketches.
• Match or competition analysis.
• Autonomous mission planning.
• Strategy revisions, the evidence or experience that prompted those changes, and the results of those changes.
• Competition reflections, lessons learned and how those lessons informed future strategy.

Possible Team Interview Evidence

• Students explain strategic choices for different mission types.
• Students describe how strategies evolved.
• Students discuss trade-offs considered when developing a strategy.
• Students explain adjustments made after practice or competition.
• Students explain how testing or results were used to evaluate and refine a strategy. 

Characteristics of Exemplary Performance

• Strategy evolves throughout the season based on experience, testing and results.
• Decisions are supported by testing and results.
• Students demonstrate strategic thinking, flexibility and adaptability.
• Teamwork/alliance and solo mission strategies are intentionally developed to complement one another.Teamwork and Mission Skills strategies complement one another.

Common Weaknesses

• Strategy remains unchanged despite testing.
• Decisions lack supporting evidence or clear reasoning.
• Students cannot explain why strategies were selected or changed.
• Limited adaptability.
• Competition experiences are documented but do not appear to influence future strategy. 

Engineering Design & Innovation

Possible Competition Notebook Evidence

• Problem statements or descriptions of the problem being addressed. 
• Brainstorming and consideration of possible solutions. 
• Design sketches, diagrams, or models. 
• CAD models or other appropriate design representations. (optional)
• Prototypes or other representations of proposed solutions. 
• Testing and evaluation documentation
• Design revisions and reasons for those changes.
• Trade-off analysis or comparison of design options. 
• Documentation showing how testing and evaluation informed design decisions. 

Possible Team Interview Evidence

• Students explain the Engineering Design Process.
• Students discuss failed ideas and lessons learned.
• Students describe why design changes were made.
• Students explain engineering trade-offs and how they influenced decisions.
• Students explain how iterations strengthened or improved the final solution. 

Characteristics of Exemplary Performance

• Multiple design iterations are documented and supported by evidence.
• Students embrace testing and revision.
• Engineering decisions are intentional.
• Reflection and learning drive continued improvement.
• Students demonstrate ownership of engineering decisions and solutions. 

Common Weaknesses

• Limited evidence of iteration.
• Final solution appears without documented development or evaluation.
• Students cannot explain design choices.
• Failures or unsuccessful ideas are omitted rather than discussed.
• Design changes are documented without explaining what prompted them or whether they improved the solution  

Coding Systems: Programming Documentation and Strategies

Possible Competition Notebook Evidence

• Code revisions or iterations.
• Programming flowcharts or logic diagrams.
• Development, testing, and refinement of autonomous routines.
• Sensor integration and configuration.
• Debugging notes or troubleshooting records.
• Version history or documentation of significant programming changes.
• Testing results and performance comparison.
• Documentation explaining why significant programming changes were made.
• Documentation showing how software, sensors, and hardware interact as an integrated system. 

Possible Team Interview Evidence

• Students explain programming logic and how their code functions.
• Students describe debugging strategies.
• Students explain the sensors used with their system.
• Students discuss autonomous improvements.
• Students explain how hardware and software work together as an integrated system. 

Characteristics of Exemplary Performance

• Students understand how their code functions.
• Programming evolves through testing, evaluation, and iteration.
• Debugging is methodical and based on testing or evidence.
• Software, sensors, and hardware function as an integrated system.
• Documentation and interview responses demonstrate authentic student understanding and ownership of the programming work. 

Common Weaknesses

• Students cannot explain code or why programming decisions were made.
• Programming appears copied or poorly understood by the students.
• Limited documentation of debugging or problem solving. 
• Minimal testing or evaluation of programming changes.
• Programming changes are documented without explaining what prompted them or what was learned.  

Industry Connections & Workforce Readiness

Possible Competition Notebook Evidence

• Career or educational pathway research
• Research and reporting on current or emerging trends in drone and aviation technology.
• Industry interviews, conversations, or visits.
• Guest speakers or industry presentations
• Workforce skill reflections developed through the team’s experience. 
• Certifications or industry related training.
• Professional presentations or communication with industry professionals.
• Industry-related projects.

Possible Team Interview Evidence

• Students discuss career or educational  interests.
• Students explain workforce skills developed through their ADC Pro experience.
• Students connect competition experiences to real-world industry applications.
• Students explain how engineering practices prepare them for future opportunities.
• Students discuss current or emerging trends in drone or aviation technology. 
• Students explain how their experiences prepare them for future education, training, or career opportunities.

Characteristics of Exemplary Performance

• Students make authentic connections between ADC Pro and industry.
• Workforce skills are demonstrated, not simply listed.
• Students understand how technical and professional skills complement one another.
• Students demonstrate awareness of current or emerging industry trends and technologies. 
• Career awareness extends beyond job titles to industry practices and lifelong learning.
• Students can explain how their ADC Pro experiences have prepared them for future opportunities. 

Common Weaknesses

• Career discussions are superficial or limited to job titles.
• Workforce skills are mentioned without examples.
• Connections to industry practices or real-world applications are unclear. 
• Students cannot explain how competition experiences relate to future education, training, or career opportunities.  

Guidance for Judges

The examples provided throughout this guide are intended to support consistent evaluation, not prescribe how teams should document or present their work.

Strong teams may provide evidence in many different ways. Some teams may rely heavily on written documentation, while others may demonstrate exceptional understanding during the team interview. A team should not be disadvantaged because its evidence is presented differently from the examples in this guide. Judges should consider all available evidence before selecting the performance level that best represents the team's overall performance.

The most effective judging recognizes authentic student ownership, thoughtful engineering practices, continuous improvement, and meaningful learning throughout the season.

Judges should use professional judgment and consider the overall body of evidence rather than relying on any single example.