Every entry is evaluated against a published rubric. No black-box judging. Here's exactly how it works.
The scoring model
Two inputs. One final score.
The Design Authority Awards uses a hybrid evaluation model that combines editorial assessment with public appreciation. Neither group decides alone.
70%
DA Editorial Score
Every entry is reviewed by the Design Authority editorial team against five defined criteria. Scores are assigned independently by each reviewer and averaged. The criteria and descriptors are published in full below. Editorial scores are locked before public appreciation opens.
30%
Public Appreciation
Once entries close, accepted works are featured publicly on the DA Awards platform. Each verified voter may cast one vote per category. Public votes reflect real-world audience resonance — they inform the final score but do not determine it alone. Voting is verified and capped at one per email per category. Coordinated voting campaigns do not change the outcome — public appreciation contributes 30% of the final score regardless of volume.
Entries are then ranked within their category and recognised at three tiers: Laureate, Distinction, and Commendation. Not all entries receive recognition — entries that do not meet the minimum quality threshold are not awarded.
The editorial rubric
Five criteria. Scored 1 to 5.
Each entry is scored from 1 to 5 across five criteria, for a maximum editorial score of 25 points. Scores are assigned independently by each reviewer and averaged to produce the final editorial result.
Anchors are defined at 1, 3, and 5. Reviewers may award any whole number from 1 to 5 — scores of 2 and 4 are valid and commonly used.
01 of 05
Form
Visual and spatial composition. Does the work demonstrate a strong, considered aesthetic language?
5
Exceptional. Immediately distinctive, visually resolved. The aesthetic language is fully formed and wholly intentional. Nothing feels arbitrary.
3
Competent and considered. A clear aesthetic direction, competently executed. Some moments of genuine distinction but not sustained throughout.
1
Generic or unresolved. No clear aesthetic point of view. The work could belong to any studio, any era.
02 of 05
Function
Fitness for purpose. Does the work serve its intended use with clarity and intelligence?
5
Seamless. Solves the problem with nothing wasted. Every decision serves the purpose. The work is a precise answer to a real question.
3
Functional with minor compromises. Serves its purpose well. Some decisions prioritise form over function, or vice versa, without significant detriment.
1
Purpose unclear or poorly served. The work fails to convincingly fulfil the brief. Significant functional gaps or contradictions are evident.
03 of 05
Craft
Quality of execution and materiality. Is there mastery in how it is made or detailed?
5
Mastery of material, detail, and finish. Every junction, surface, and transition has been considered. The execution elevates the concept.
3
Solid execution with some inconsistency. Predominantly well-made. Minor lapses in detail or finish that do not undermine the overall quality.
1
Rough, unfinished, or carelessly executed. Execution undermines the concept. Material choices or detailing appear unconsidered.
04 of 05
Innovation
Originality of thinking or approach. Does the work introduce something genuinely new?
5
Reframes the problem or the category. The work introduces a genuinely new approach, material application, or way of thinking. Others will follow.
3
A fresh take on a familiar approach. A recognisable typology or method, applied with enough intelligence or wit to feel distinctly its own.
1
Derivative. No new thinking introduced. The work replicates existing approaches without meaningful interpretation or contribution.
05 of 05
Emotion
Resonance and experience. Does the work provoke a genuine human response?
5
Stays with you. Provokes a real and lasting response — awe, desire, stillness, recognition. The work makes you feel something you did not expect to feel.
3
Pleasant but not deeply felt. Well-considered and agreeable. Creates a positive response without provoking anything that lingers.
1
Flat. No emotional register. The work is inert. Technically present but experientially absent.
Recognition tiers
Three tiers. Each earned.
Entries are ranked by final score within their category. Recognition is awarded at three tiers. Not all entries receive recognition — entries that do not meet the minimum quality threshold are not awarded a tier.
Laureate
Top 5–10% of entries
The highest recognition within a category. Reserved for work that demonstrates exceptional quality across all five criteria and achieves the highest combined final scores.
Distinction
Next 15–25% of entries
Awarded to work that demonstrates strong quality and clear merit. A Distinction marks a practice as one doing work worth paying serious attention to.
Commendation
Entries meeting quality threshold
Work that meets the minimum quality standard set by the editorial team. A Commendation confirms that the work was assessed as credible and worthy of recognition.
Categories are kept deliberately tight. We would rather give fewer awards that mean something than many that do not.
Submission materials
What we assess from.
Entries are evaluated from submitted materials only. Our editorial team does not conduct site visits or request supplementary documentation after the submission deadline. Submit your strongest materials.
Required submission materials
01
Project Brief
250 words maximum. Describe the brief, the challenge, the decisions made, and what you are most proud of. Write for a thoughtful non-specialist audience.
02
Photography or Renders
Minimum 5 high-resolution images. Final photography preferred. Renders are accepted where final photography is not available.
03
Portfolio Link or PDF
Optional but recommended. A link to your website or a PDF portfolio provides valuable context and is considered by reviewers where provided.
Guardrails
How we keep it honest.
These rules exist to protect the integrity of the awards and the meaning of a DA Award for every entrant.
Voting is verified and capped at one per email address per category. Coordinated voting campaigns do not change the outcome — public appreciation contributes 30% of the final score regardless of volume. Duplicate or unverified votes are discarded.
Payment of the entry fee does not guarantee recognition. All entries are assessed on merit against the published rubric. Fees are non-refundable.
DA Editorial Scores are locked and sealed before public appreciation opens. The editorial team's assessment cannot be influenced by public voting activity.
DA Editorial Scores are final. Scores are not disclosed to entrants, and the editorial team does not enter into correspondence regarding individual assessments. The published rubric is the sole basis for evaluation.
Entries are evaluated on submitted materials only. Reviewers assess what is presented — reputation, studio size, and prior awards do not factor into scoring.
Categories are kept deliberately tight. We would rather give fewer awards that mean something than many that do not.
2026 timeline
Mark your calendar.
15 May 2026
Submissions open
20 Aug 2026
Submissions close — no late entries accepted
1 Sep 2026
Public appreciation opens — editorial scores already locked
30 Sep 2026
Public appreciation closes
15 Oct 2026
Winners announced across all categories
Entries are curated and evaluated by Design Authority. Public appreciation reflects audience resonance and contributes 30% to the final recognition score.
Ready to be evaluated?
Submit your strongest project. USD 199 flat entry fee. Submissions close 20 August 2026.