The LaunchPad2026 / NUS

The judging brief / Five pillars

A modest claim, proven,
beats a grand claim, asserted.

Score the quality of the team’s reasoning and evidence—not the category of artefact they chose to build.

Pillar 01

Problem

Why does this matter, and what would success look like?

  1. 1Problem is unclear, trivial, or unsupported by a real user need.
  2. 2A plausible problem is named, but users, stakes, or success are vague.
  3. 3The user, need, and a credible definition of success are clear.
  4. 4The problem is specific, important, and supported by strong context or insight.
  5. 5Exceptional problem insight reframes the opportunity and makes success measurable.

Pillar 02

Approach

Why this solution, and what did they rule out?

  1. 1The solution is unexplained, copied, or disconnected from the problem.
  2. 2The approach is understandable but choices and alternatives are weakly justified.
  3. 3The approach fits the problem and the main product or technical choices make sense.
  4. 4Trade-offs and alternatives are handled thoughtfully with strong execution choices.
  5. 5The approach is unusually sharp, original, and demonstrably better than alternatives.

Pillar 03

Evidence

How do they know it works?

  1. 1There is no usable proof that the product works.
  2. 2A demo or claim exists, but validation is thin or mostly anecdotal.
  3. 3The working product and relevant tests, users, or outcomes provide credible evidence.
  4. 4Multiple concrete signals support effectiveness, reliability, or user value.
  5. 5Compelling quantitative and qualitative evidence strongly validates the product.

Pillar 04

Constraints

Does it work under real-world limits?

  1. 1Important practical limits are ignored or make the product unusable.
  2. 2Some constraints are acknowledged, but the response is incomplete or untested.
  3. 3Key limits such as cost, scale, safety, or accessibility are handled credibly.
  4. 4The team made thoughtful trade-offs and tested the product under realistic limits.
  5. 5Constraint handling is a standout strength and materially improves the solution.

Pillar 05

Honesty & trajectory

Where does it break, and what is next?

  1. 1Limitations are hidden, dismissed, or contradicted by the evidence.
  2. 2Weaknesses are mentioned, but learning and next steps remain generic.
  3. 3The team is candid about limits and proposes sensible next steps.
  4. 4Strong self-critique connects learning to a focused, credible roadmap.
  5. 5Exceptional honesty and learning velocity make the future trajectory compelling.

Final reminder

Do not reward polish by itself. Look for alternatives, baselines, measured constraints, negative results, honest limitations and a credible two-week next-step plan.