.png)
.png)
This isn't the rubric restated, it's what the five sections actually mean in practice, where students genuinely lose points, and how to work on your own deck section by section.
Read it once before you start writing, then again before you submit.
5
20
Sections
Points each
Your guide to the
Judging Rubric
100
Total Points
Pitch Deck Submission
READ THIS FIRST
The five sections aren't five separate tests
Their order isn't arbitrary : it's the order your deck should argue in. Miss this, and it's easy to treat each section as an isolated checklist instead of one connected argument.
01. Problem
What's wrong, for whom, and why it persists
02. Solution
What you're proposing, and what makes it genuinely different
03. Feasibility
Whether it can actually be built, scaled, and sustained
05 Design
Whether the deck's craft matches its thinking
04. Clarity
Whether a stranger can follow 1–3 without your help
READ THIS FIRST
The five sections aren't five separate tests
Their order isn't arbitrary : it's the order your deck should argue in. Sections 1–3 score what you're saying. Section 4 scores how well you've structured everything you just said. Section 5 scores how it looks while it says it. Miss this, and it's easy to treat each section as an isolated checklist instead of one connected argument.
01
Problem
What's wrong, for whom, and why it persists
02
Solution
What you're proposing, and what makes it genuinely different
03
Feasibility
Whether it can actually be built, scaled, and sustained
04
Clarity
Whether a stranger can follow 1–3 without your help
05
Design
Whether the deck's craft matches its thinking
READ THIS FIRST
The five sections aren't five separate tests
Their order isn't arbitrary : it's the order your deck should argue in. Miss this, and it's easy to treat each section as an isolated checklist instead of one connected argument.
01
Problem
What's wrong, for whom, and why it persists
02
Solution
What you're proposing, and what makes it genuinely different
03
Feasibility
Whether it can actually be built, scaled, and sustained
04
Clarity
Whether a stranger can follow 1–3 without your help
05
Design
Whether the deck's craft matches its thinking
Proofread
Spelling and grammar errors affect your slide design score. Read your deck out loud before submitting.
Sections 2 and 4 are different
Section 2 scores how creative your idea is. Section 4 scores how clearly you explain it. You need both.
Scalability matters
Could your solution work beyond your school or city? Judges want to see that ambition.
SDGs aren't a checkbox
Don't just name a goal - show exactly how your solution contributes to it with specifics.
Less is more
One strong idea per slide beats five crammed together. If a slide is hard to read, simplify it.
Five things judges notice before they open the rubric
Small, specific habits — not scoring criteria on their own — that separate decks judges remember from decks judges forget.
JUDGING RUBRIC | UNPACKED
Five sections. Twenty points each. Here's what each one is actually testing.
Each section has three criteria and a self-check question. Score yourself honestly before submitting.
1
Problem identification
Understanding the issue
20 pts
TO SCORE FULL MARKS
SELF-CHECK
Clearly name and define the social or environmental problem
Explain who is affected and why it matters - backed by evidence or real data
Go deeper than the obvious symptoms and explore root causes
Have I backed up my problem with evidence or data - not just described it?
Full marks come from root-cause depth, not just naming the problem. "Farmers lose 30% of crops to pests" is a symptom — tracing why (limited pesticide access, outdated methods, guidance that never reaches rural areas) is the diagnosis
judges reward.
Where teams lose points
-
Global stats never localized to the actual community
-
"Lack of awareness" treated as a root cause — it's usually a symptom of cost or trust
-
Adjectives ("a huge issue") instead of specifics a judge can picture
Try this : One sentence, zero adjectives: who, where, how often, so what. Can't answer "so what"? Not sharp enough yet.
-
Solution & Originality
Novelty & creative thinking
2
20 pts
TO SCORE FULL MARKS
Present a solution that logically responds to the problem you identified in Section 1
Show what makes your approach different from what already exists — explicitly, not implied
Bring a fresh angle, creative twist, or new way of thinking to the problem
SELF-CHECK
Is my solution something new? If a judge has seen 50 pitches today, would mine stand out?
Originality means being deliberate, not first. Judges have seen the farmer-to-buyer app and the mental-health chatbot — they want to know what's specifically different about your version, and that difference still has to solve the root cause, not just look new.
Where teams lose points
-
Solving the symptom, not the root cause from Section 1
-
Never naming the closest existing alternative
-
Choosing "impressive" tech over what fits the community's context
Try this: Name the closest thing users already do today. Then say what's different — and why that difference matters.
-
Feasibility, Impact & Sustainability
Viability, scalability & SDG alignment
3
20 pts
TO SCORE FULL MARKS
Include a realistic plan or steps for how your solution could be put into action
Acknowledge at least one challenge or barrier, and how you'd address it
Connect your solution to one or more UN SDGs and explain the real-world impact it could have
SELF-CHECK
Have I shown that this could actually work, grow, and last - not just that it's a nice idea?
This rewards realism over ambition. Name one real obstacle — cost, adoption, trust — and address it directly; that reads as maturity. SDGs are scored the same way: explain the mechanism behind the connection, don't just name the goal.
Where teams lose points
-
No plan beyond "we will launch and scale"
-
SDG named, but never explained
-
Barriers skipped, or an easy one swapped in for the real one
-
Impact described in feelings, not a plausible outcome
Try this: Pick the obstacle that actually worries you. Two sentences: what it is, what you'd do about it.
-
Clarity & Structure
Narrative flow & standalone readability
4
20 pts
TO SCORE FULL MARKS
Build a clear narrative arc: open with the problem, move logically to your solution, and explain how it works
Make sure every claim - about the problem, the solution, and its impact - is backed by evidence or a well-reasoned argument
SELF-CHECK
If I handed this deck to a stranger right now, could they understand the problem AND the solution - without me saying a word?
Judged as a stranger reads it cold — no you in the room to clarify. Every claim needs a "how do you know that" answer. And don't confuse this with Section 2: creative idea and clear explanation are different scores — a great idea still needs to be built into an explanation.
Where teams lose points
-
No bridge from problem to solution — the "why this solves that" left implicit
-
Features listed instead of explaining how it actually works
-
Data dropped in with no framing of what it means
-
Domain jargon assumed the reader already knows
Try this: Read it aloud to someone with zero context. Can't they repeat back problem + solution? Not there yet.
-
Slide design & visual communication
Design quality & visual clarity
5
20 pts
TO SCORE FULL MARKS
Keep your layout, fonts, and colour scheme consistent and professional from the first slide to the last
Use every visual - chart, image, diagram - intentionally; if it doesn't add meaning, remove it
SELF-CHECK
Do my slides look professional throughout, and does every visual actually help judges understand my pitch better?
The only section scoring execution over thinking — but a cluttered deck makes judges doubt the rigor behind everything else. Every visual should do analytical work. If deleting a graphic loses nothing, delete it.
Where teams lose points
-
Inconsistent fonts, colours, or spacing across slides
-
Charts or images used as decoration, not argument
-
Text-heavy slides — the deck stands alone, with no one to narrate it
-
Low contrast or tiny text that's unreadable at deck size
Try this: Zoom out to thumbnails. Can't tell slides apart from a distance? Simplify.
-
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
A suggested slide flow, mapped to the rubric
This is the structure the LGIC Pitch Deck Template is built around. It's a starting point, not a requirement — adapt it to your solution, but keep the underlying logic: problem, then solution, then proof it can work, in that order.
BEFORE YOU SUBMIT
Two rules that apply across all five sections
Evidence standard
This applies to all 5 sections equally - not just Problem Identification. Every claim in your deck, whether about the problem, your solution, or its potential impact, should be supported by evidence, data, or a clearly reasoned argument. Unsupported claims will affect your score across all sections.
Team participation notice
Applicable to team submissions only. All members of a team are equally responsible for the pitch - unequal or absent participation from any member may result in disqualification. Solo participants are assessed solely on the merit of their submission.
Final self-check
Every claim in my deck is backed by evidence, data, or clear reasoning, where possible — in every section, not just the problem slide
My problem statement names who is affected and why it matters, with root causes explored, not just symptoms
My solution logically responds to the problem, and I've said what's different about it from what already exists
I've named a real obstacle to feasibility and how I'd address it
A stranger could follow problem → solution → proof with no explanation from me
I've connected my solution to one or more SDGs and explained the real-world impact, not just named the goal
Fonts, colours, and layout are consistent from slide one to the last
I've read the whole deck aloud at least once before submitting
Every chart, image, or diagram is doing analytical work — nothing is decoration
If this is a team submission, every member contributed to both the deck and the pitch