Projects are evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5 for each criterion (where 5 is the highest score), weighting each of the four main categories according to its relevance to the Creative Economy.
The final score is calculated by multiplying the average of each section by its percentage weight and summing the four results.
Does the project propose a genuinely new idea, product or service, or a radically different solution to existing problems?
Unique regional/international solution creating a new market segment. Strong IP protection.
Incremental improvement on an existing solution; proposes a new approach but the core idea is not completely new.
Idea or product widely available in the market; little or no differentiation.
How does the project integrate cutting-edge technologies (AI, AR/VR) or unique artistic expressions to enhance the experience or process?
Critical integration of advanced technology (blockchain, generative AI, extended reality) essential to project functionality.
Technology or art is a useful but non-central component (standard informational app, common graphic design use).
Purely analog project or uses very basic technological/artistic tools.
Aesthetic, narrative or conceptual quality of the content or product presented.
High aesthetic quality, deep narrative, impeccable design and superior user experience generating strong emotional connection.
Acceptable professional quality, serves its function but lacks a "wow" factor or significant artistic differentiator.
Poor design, incoherent content or lack of attention to aesthetics and user experience.
Clarity and coherence of the value proposition, cost structure, revenue sources and target market.
Detailed, realistic model with clear projections, multiple identified revenue streams and justified ROI.
Basic model with one defined revenue source but vague projections or based on a single channel.
No revenue model presented, or it is incoherent/impossible to execute.
Potential of the project to grow, replicate in other markets or regions, and generate skilled employment.
Designed to grow exponentially with clear geographic expansion plan (international) or mass adoption with minimal additional investment.
Can grow locally or in a limited sector but faces significant barriers to international expansion.
Unique project, dependent on one place or person, and not replicable.
Knowledge and understanding of the market, competition and clear identification of the target audience.
Solid market research identifying direct/indirect competitors and clear competitive advantage. Specific, validated customer profile.
Market and competitors mentioned superficially; target audience is too broad.
Market or competition not mentioned, or project is disconnected from sector reality.
How does the project contribute to heritage preservation, social inclusion, education or improving community quality of life?
Direct, measurable impact on a relevant SDG, or revitalizes an at-risk cultural tradition, generating formal employment and lasting cultural value.
Impact is indirect or limited to a small group of beneficiaries without a clear plan for expanding social benefit.
Purely commercial purpose or the social/cultural impact is nonexistent or irrelevant.
The project's capacity to be self-sufficient and generate returns in the medium and long term without relying exclusively on grants.
Demonstrates capacity to generate sufficient revenue to cover operating costs and reinvest for growth without constant external financing.
Depends on an initial capital injection but has a clear path to reaching break-even in the short term.
Continuous dependence on public funds or donations for survival.
Potential generation of intellectual property (IP) or a cultural asset that endures and can be monetized.
Project generates valuable IP (patents, copyrights) that can be licensed or sold, securing long-term value.
IP is limited or focuses on minor assets (logo, trade names).
No IP protection or the generated value is not a differentiating asset.
Track record, diversity of skills and commitment of team members to carry the project forward.
Multidisciplinary team with demonstrable experience in key areas (creativity, technology, business) and high commitment level.
Small team with limited but complementary skills. Requires external alliances for execution.
Team lacks relevant experience or the key skills needed for the project.
Ability to communicate the idea concisely, attractively and persuasively during the final presentation.
The pitch is clear, concise, emotionally compelling and answers all key questions within the allotted time.
The presentation is informative but lacks persuasion or is disorganized.
Presentation is confusing, exceeds time or team fails to articulate the core value of the proposal.
This scale ensures the concept of "Excellent" is identical for all jury members, regardless of the category being evaluated.
Exceeds expectations. Disruptive potential and world-class flawless execution.
Meets requirements solidly with notable strengths. Strong candidate.
Meets most requirements but has significant areas for improvement.
Serious deficiencies in key areas. Requires major restructuring.
Does not meet basic requirements. Unviable or incoherent proposal.
The jury will use this format to record evaluations and automatically calculate the final weighted score.