Purpose
The ADC Competition Notebook Evidence Guide provides examples of evidence judges may observe in a team’s competition notebook. These examples are intended to support consistent judging by illustrating the types of documentation that may demonstrate the criteria in the ADC competition notebook rubric.
The examples 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, iterative decisions, and project goals.
Judges should evaluate the quality, relevance, completeness, and student ownership of the evidence rather than the quantity of documentation or number of examples presented.
Important Note: Completeness refers to how well the notebook provides meaningful evidence of the team's work, thinking, decisions, learning, and development. It does not mean the notebook must contain a particular number of pages, entries, artifacts, or examples. Judges should not award additional credit based on the quantity of documentation or the number of artifacts included in the notebook.
Written Communication Skills
Possible Competition Notebook Evidence
- Dated entries that identify contributing students.
- Clear organization that allows information to be easily located and understood.
- Appropriate flight and technical terminology.
- Documentation that explains the team's work rather than simply recording activities.
Characteristics of Strong Evidence
- Documentation is clear, organized, and complete.
- Students communicate what they did, what they learned, and how their work developed.
- Entries provide a clear record of the team's progress and decision-making.
Common Weaknesses
- Entries are difficult to follow or poorly organized.
- Activities are recorded without explanation.
- Documentation provides limited evidence of student ownership or does not clearly reflect the students' own work, thinking, and contributions.
- Documentation provides limited evidence of an iterative process, such as changes, lessons learned, or development over time.
Team, Leadership & Project Management
Possible Competition Notebook Evidence
- Documentation of team roles and responsibilities.
- Project timelines, schedules, or planning tools.
- Records showing how the team organized tasks and managed time.
- Evidence of changes to responsibilities, priorities, or plans as the project developed.
- Documentation of team decisions and project-management practices.
Characteristics of Strong Evidence
- The notebook demonstrates intentional planning and organization.
- Team roles and responsibilities are clear.
- Documentation shows how the team managed its work over time.
Common Weaknesses
- Roles or responsibilities are unclear.
- Planning and time management are minimally documented.
- Tasks are listed without evidence of how the team organized or managed the project.
Safety, Operations & Maintenance
Possible Competition Notebook Evidence
- Pre- and post-flight checklists.
- Flight logs and maintenance records.
- Safety or training documentation.
- FAA TRUST documentation for U.S. teams.
- Documentation of applicable local drone regulations.
- Records showing how safety, maintenance, or training affected team operations.
Characteristics of Strong Evidence
- Safety, operations, and maintenance are documented as ongoing team practices.
- The notebook demonstrates knowledge of safe drone operation and maintenance.
- Training and applicable regulations are documented and connected to team operations.
Common Weaknesses
- Safety or maintenance documentation is limited or incomplete.
- Training or regulatory requirements are not documented.
- Records show activities without demonstrating understanding or application.
Data Performance & Analysis
Possible Competition Notebook Evidence
- Flight-time and battery-performance data.
- Drone and controller performance data.
- Test results and comparisons.
- Tables, charts, or other organized representations of performance data.
- Analysis explaining what the data showed and how it informed decisions or improvements.
Characteristics of Strong Evidence
- Data is collected purposefully and documented clearly.
- The team analyzes performance rather than simply recording measurements.
- Data is used to evaluate testing and guide improvements.
Common Weaknesses
- Limited performance data.
- Data is presented without meaningful analysis.
- Testing results are documented but not connected to decisions or improvements.
Alliance/Teamwork Mission Analysis & Strategies
Possible Competition Notebook Evidence
- Analysis of teamwork mission rules and scoring.
- Analysis of practice and competition results.
- Brainstorming and testing of strategies.
- Documentation of strategy results and lessons learned.
- Multiple strategy iterations showing how the team's approach developed.
Characteristics of Strong Evidence
- The notebook demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the teamwork mission.
- Strategy is supported by practice, testing, and competition experience.
- The team documents how strategies developed over time.
Common Weaknesses
- Strategy is described without analysis.
- Limited evidence of testing or iteration.
- Competition or practice results are documented but do not appear to influence strategy.
Solo Autonomous Flight Mission Programming Documentation & Strategies
Possible Competition Notebook Evidence
- Analysis of solo autonomous flight mission rules and scoring.
- Programming documentation and version history, including annotations.
- Brainstorming, testing, and evaluation of programs.
- Documentation of programming changes and iterations.
- Results and lessons learned from autonomous testing.
Characteristics of Strong Evidence
- The notebook demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the solo autonomous flight mission.
- Programming develops through testing and iteration.
- The team documents why programs changed and what was learned.
Common Weaknesses
- Programming is documented without showing development or iteration.
- Limited testing of autonomous programs.
- Code changes are recorded without explaining what prompted them or what was learned.
Solo Piloting Mission Flight Analysis & Strategies
Possible Competition Notebook Evidence
- Analysis of solo piloting mission rules and scoring.
- Analysis of practice and competition results.
- Brainstorming and testing of piloting strategies.
- Documentation of strategy results and lessons learned.
- Multiple strategy iterations showing how the team's approach developed.
Characteristics of Strong Evidence
- The notebook demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the solo piloting mission.
- Strategies develop through practice, testing, and competition experience.
- The team documents how results informed subsequent strategies.
Common Weaknesses
- Limited analysis of the solo piloting mission.
- Strategy is documented without evidence of testing or iteration.
- Practice and competition results are recorded but do not influence future strategy.
Drone and Aviation Career and Industry Practices
Possible Competition Notebook Evidence
- Research showing how drones are used in multiple professions.
- Documentation of interviews or interactions with drone-industry professionals.
- Research and reporting on current trends in aviation and drone technology.
- References to resources used in research.
- Reflections connecting industry practices to the team's learning.
Characteristics of Strong Evidence
- The notebook demonstrates specific knowledge of drone and aviation career opportunities.
- Research is supported by referenced resources.
- Students connect industry practices and emerging technology to their experience.
Common Weaknesses
- Career information is general or limited to job titles.
- Resources used for research are not referenced.
- Limited connection between research and the team's learning.
Guidance for Judges
The examples provided throughout this guide are intended to support consistent evaluation, not prescribe how teams should document their work.
Strong teams may provide evidence in many different ways. A team should not be disadvantaged because its evidence is presented differently from the examples in this guide. Judges should consider the overall body of evidence for each criterion and select the performance level that best represents the quality of the team's notebook.
The most effective judging recognizes clear student communication, authentic student ownership, thoughtful planning, meaningful analysis, iterative development, and learning demonstrated throughout the notebook.
Judges should use professional judgment and consider the quality and relevance of the evidence rather than the number of artifacts or pages presented.