Submissions undergo a comprehensive and rigorous assessment process.

Three judges are assigned to each submission in each category.

Judges are typically given 7 – 10 days to score the submissions assigned to them.

The judging progress is checked and, where pertinent, judges are sent a gentle reminder of the completion date.

Judges score every question and provide feedback on how to improve each submission.

Once all entries are scored then award convenors conduct an audit – cross-checking all scores given by all judges to identify instances where a judge’s score is out of sync by more than 20 percentile with other judges. Where this occurs award convenors check the submission before contacting the judge about this matter to talk through their score and, where appropriate, requesting a re-assessment of that specific question. (Most often the judge has simply misread or misinterpreted information in the submission. However, without this vital step worthy winners can fail to reach finalist status or incorrect nominees can be announced as winners.)

Where the number of entries is too great to be assigned to just three judges then an additional, pivotal process is introduced whereby all judges for the one category are compared through a variable means calculation. If this results in a variance that is then applied to submission scores. This ensures nominees compete on an equal playing field with none disadvantaged by “harsh” or “easy” scoring judges.