Pause carousel
Play carousel
Judges
Each round of the competition will be judged by a panel of cyber policy experts. To standardize scoring and encourage consensus, all judges will score the teams based on a common grading scorecard. Judges may vary between sessions and rounds subject to their availability.
Judges can range from experts in cyber security, policy, management, and more within the public, private, and third sector. Training will be provided to judges before the competition. The scorecard used by judges can be seen below.
Register as a judge.
Cyber 9/12 Scorecard
Understanding of Cyber Policy
[4 points] The team demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of cyber policy issues, accurately identified key stakeholders and applicable instruments / levers
[3 points] The team demonstrated a good knowledge of cyber policy issues, identified appropriate stakeholders, instruments/levers
[2 points] The team demonstrated a general understanding of cyber policy but mis-identified some appropriate stakeholders, instruments/levers
[1 point] The team demonstrated limited knowledge of cyber policy, stakeholders, and instruments levers
Identification of Key Issues
[4 points] The team successfully identified and fully responded to all the issues posed by the scenario [3 points] The team identified and responded to the main issues posed by the scenario
[2 points] The team identified some relevant issues posed by the scenario or partially responded to main issues identified [1 point] The team referenced general cyber issues not relevant to the scenario or overly focused on a single issue
Policy Response Option – Analysis and Selected Option
[4 points] The team’s policy response options fully addressed the scenario and clearly articulated trade-offs. The optimal solution was proposed
[3 points] The team’s policy response options addressed the main elements of the scenario and articulated some trade- offs. A good solution was proposed
[2 points] The team’s policy response options addressed some elements of the scenario and/or there was a limited articulation of trade-offs. A solution that had some value was proposed
[1 point] The team’s suggested responses were overly narrow or only focused on one element of the scenario. The proposed solution was unlikely to be successful
Structure and Communication
[4 points] The team presented with a very clear, logical structure to their analysis and options, clearly communicated with the audience and were exemplary (brevity & accuracy) in their responses to questions
[3 points] The team presented with a structure to their analysis and options, communicated relatively well with the audience and gave good answers in response to questions
[2 points] The team presented with an occasionally unclear structure to their analysis and options, occasionally struggled to clearly communicate with the audience and / or occasionally gave unclear answers in response to questions
[1 point] The team’s presentation of analysis and options lacked structure, hindering effective communication with the audience and gave unclear answers in response to questions
Originality and Creativity
[4 points] The team offered highly effective and innovative solutions to the scenario that go beyond existing canonical literature or best practices
[3 points] The team offered effective, creative solutions to the scenario, grounded in current best practices and literature [2 points] The team offered partially effective solutions to the scenario with a degree of creativity, drawing upon some
superseded best practice
[1 point] The team offered potentially ineffective solutions to the scenario, without creativity drawing upon superseded best practice
