Somebody always suspects the result was decided before the pitches were heard. Usually there is no way to answer them — you can only ask them to trust the organisers. So we built the hackathon on infrastructure that answers instead: the criteria are committed before entries open, the judging panel is drawn where anyone can re-run the draw, and no score can be quietly changed after the fact.
An AI reads every submission, and it reads all of them with the same attention — which is the one thing a human judge cannot honestly promise on the two-hundredth pitch of the week. What the AI produces is a ranking with its reasons written down.
It does not decide. Not because we distrust it, but because a decision needs someone who can be asked to answer for it, and software cannot be asked. So every cut carries a human signature, and the AI's reasoning sits beside that signature where you can read it.
Every entry read and ranked, with reasons recorded. The shortlist is a recommendation, and a panel signs the cut before it is real.
Assigned people work with the teams that got through — alongside the AI, not replaced by it. Who advised whom, and when, is recorded rather than remembered.
A drawn panel of people picks first, second and third. The AI advises. The signature is human, and it is the only thing that counts.
None of the following requires taking our word for it, and none of it requires trusting the judges. It is arithmetic anyone can re-run.
A hackathon that oversold its own fairness would be worse than one that never mentioned it. So, plainly:
Dates, team size, criteria and prizes for the next edition are being finalised. Tell us you are interested and we will send them as soon as they are set.