Final results

Two tracks, judged and ranked separately. Each project carries the judges' marks out of 80, plus up to 10 for Facebook reactions and 10 for GitHub stars, for a total out of 100.

Spirit of July

Marked independently by 2 judges, and averaged. Engagement scaled against the best in this track: 181 reactions and 62 stars both score 10.

#ProjectJudge 1 /80Judge 2 /80Average /80Facebook /10GitHub /10Total /100
1st唳膏Δ唰嵿ΟQR (ShottoQR)TellTheTruth 路 Dhaka43.067.05510181 reactions9.1957 stars74.19
2ndGovwatchTeam Buraq 路 Barishal49.067.558.254.8688 reactions7.5847 stars70.69
3rdProtocol36te@rGas 路 Dhaka59.545.052.258.40152 reactions1062 stars70.65
4JonomotTeam dropOuts 路 Dhaka56.347.051.634.6484 reactions5.9737 stars62.23
536 Days Through Their EyesByte_force 路 Dhaka34.563.5495.2595 reactions4.8430 stars59.09
6Echoes of JulyBear Minimum 路 Dhaka37.559.048.251.6029 reactions4.6829 stars54.53
7IdentityFaHa 路 Moulvibazar54.536.545.500.7714 reactions0.322 stars46.60
8March to GanabhabanBhashanir_Soinik 路 Tangail26.055.040.501.8233 reactions4.1926 stars46.52
Judges' comments

唳膏Δ唰嵿ΟQR (ShottoQR)

Judge 2: Seven forensic signals with an explainable score rather than a verdict, Ed25519 seal plus SHA-256 chain, and a QR that verifies offline with no server. Court-ready PDF with custody trail. Exactly the tool the theme calls for, built to be checkable by a sceptic.

Govwatch

Judge 2: Real corpus, real infrastructure: 50,000+ contracts, Bangla-aware FTS5 fused with vector search by reciprocal rank, z-score outliers surfaced as red flags, every answer cited, no login wall. Live on its own domain. The clearest civic-accountability entry.

Protocol36

Judge 2: Right problem, victim records that cannot be quietly edited. But the solution text is a feature list, blockchain and IPFS are asserted rather than justified against a signed append-only log, and the how is missing.

Jonomot

Judge 2: Rating government offices and publishing what documents you actually need is quietly useful and well aimed at ordinary friction. Conventional build; moderation will decide whether it survives contact with reality.

36 Days Through Their Eyes

Judge 2: 26 events each cross-checked against two independent sources and cited inline; every branch converges on the documented outcome; a Historical Reality panel stops fiction replacing record; real victims named and distinguished from composites. The most rigorous handling of contested history here.

Echoes of July

Judge 2: Holds contradictory accounts open, birdshot versus rubber bullets versus gunshot, instead of resolving them, and keeps provenance separate from caption. That editorial discipline is rarer than the engineering.

Identity

Judge 2: Ties directly to the quota grievance that started the uprising, which is a strong framing. But extracting a biometric profile from a photograph of a fingerprint via a general-purpose vision model is not sound biometrics, and the system's entire claim rests on it.

March to Ganabhaban

Judge 2: Deliberately built on raylib and WebAssembly so it runs on low-end hardware, the constraint is the point, and most teams ignore it. Depicting named real individuals as game antagonists is an editorial decision organisers should look at, not a scoring matter.

How this was marked

Each judge scored every finalist out of 80 across the five criteria in Section 9 of the guideline: impact and relevance to track (25), technical execution (20), innovation and originality (15), feasibility and resilience (10), and presentation and usability (10). The judges' column is the mean of their marks, not a sum.

The remaining 20 points are public engagement, scored exactly as Section 8 described before the sprint began: proportional to the best in the track. The highest Facebook reaction count in a track scores the full 10, and every other project scores its count 梅 the highest count 脳 10. GitHub stars are scaled the same way against the highest star count in that track. Counts were frozen on 1 August at 23:59.

Rank-based and logarithmic scaling would both narrow the distance between a widely shared post and a quiet one, and there is a fair argument that either measures engagement better than raw proportion does. Neither is used here, because the proportional rule is the one teams could read before they built anything. Changing the formula after the counts were frozen would move points on a rule nobody had seen.

A component that was never counted is shown as uncounted and scores nothing, rather than being averaged away as if it were a zero somebody measured.

Every projectPublic engagement leaderboard