Team:
Mechanism:
Team Members:
Date:
Grade Scale
A: 45-50 (Excellent)
B: 40-44 (Good)
C: 35-39 (Satisfactory)
D: 30-34 (Needs Improvement)
F: <30 (Unsatisfactory)
| Criterion | Performance Levels | Points | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1. Technical Accuracy & Depth
Understanding of consensus mechanism, correct use of terminology, depth of technical knowledge
|
13-15: Excellent
Demonstrates deep understanding; accurately explains mechanism details; uses precise technical terminology; addresses complex concepts (e.g., Byzantine fault tolerance, economic security models)
10-12: Good
Shows solid understanding; explains key concepts correctly; mostly accurate terminology; covers important technical aspects
7-9: Satisfactory
Basic understanding evident; some technical inaccuracies; limited depth; covers main points but misses nuances
0-6: Needs Improvement
Significant gaps in understanding; frequent inaccuracies; vague or incorrect terminology
|
15 | ___ |
|
2. Quality of Arguments & Evidence
Strength of arguments, use of data/statistics, real-world examples, logical reasoning
|
11-12: Excellent
Compelling arguments supported by specific data (TPS, energy usage, validator counts); cites multiple real-world networks; logical flow; acknowledges tradeoffs honestly
9-10: Good
Strong arguments with some data support; references real networks; mostly logical; some acknowledgment of tradeoffs
6-8: Satisfactory
Basic arguments; limited data/examples; reasoning has gaps; oversimplifies tradeoffs
0-5: Needs Improvement
Weak arguments; little to no evidence; illogical reasoning; ignores tradeoffs
|
12 | ___ |
|
3. Engagement with Opposing Views
Cross-examination performance, responses to challenges, counterarguments
|
9-10: Excellent
Asks probing questions of opponents; defends weaknesses effectively; acknowledges valid criticisms; offers strong counterarguments; respectful engagement
7-8: Good
Engages meaningfully with opponents; adequate defense; some good counterarguments; mostly respectful
5-6: Satisfactory
Basic engagement; defensive without strong rebuttals; few counterarguments; uneven performance
0-4: Needs Improvement
Minimal engagement; weak defense; no effective counterarguments; dismissive or disrespectful
|
10 | ___ |
|
4. Application to Use Cases
Analysis of scenario requirements, justification for mechanism choice, understanding of real-world constraints
|
7-8: Excellent
Thoroughly analyzes scenario requirements; clearly connects mechanism features to use case needs; addresses specific constraints (throughput, finality, cost); realistic assessment
5-6: Good
Good analysis of requirements; makes clear connections to mechanism; addresses most constraints; mostly realistic
3-4: Satisfactory
Basic analysis; some relevant connections; misses key constraints; somewhat unrealistic
0-2: Needs Improvement
Superficial analysis; weak connections; ignores constraints; unrealistic claims
|
8 | ___ |
|
5. Presentation & Team Coordination
Clarity of communication, organization, equal participation, time management
|
5: Excellent
Clear, confident presentation; well-organized; all members contribute meaningfully; excellent time management; smooth transitions
4: Good
Clear presentation; organized; most members contribute; good time management
3: Satisfactory
Adequate clarity; some organization; uneven participation; time management issues
0-2: Needs Improvement
Unclear presentation; disorganized; one person dominates; poor time management
|
5 | ___ |
| TOTAL SCORE | 50 | ___ |
|
© Joerg Osterrieder 2025-2026. All rights reserved.