An agent-native football review room where coaches draw what they mean and ChatGPT searches a full match through native WebMCP, returning inspectable video, tracking and event evidence.
Aggregate36
Leverage9.5
Execution9
Impact8
Creativity9.5
Each criterion 1–10, equally weighted; aggregate is their sum. Ranking is the pipeline's consolidated output.
Origin, access model, eligibility, and substitution are reviewer diagnostics, not judging criteria. Authentication requirements are not penalized.
02 The two blind reviews
Two independent reviewers scored this project blind, from a sanitized evidence packet.
Scores are shown separately so the reasoning stays inspectable. A withheld score means the reviewers differed by more than two points.
Reviewer A (round 1)
confidence 86%
Leverage
9 /10
WebMCP lets the agent consume live visual workspace semantics and return precise, inspectable evidence; translating a coach's drawing into coordinates and database filters through UI driving would be substantially worse.
Evidence cited
About text says the coach draws zones/routes and the agent reads live workspace state.
Contact sheet visibly shows video, timeline, tactical pitch, an execution-like overlay, and synchronized result.
Execution
8 /10
A focused workflow is coherently represented from visual query to synchronized video/pitch/timeline evidence, though some labels and full search lifecycle are not legible.
Evidence cited
About text specifies 44:55 first half, 1,029 actions, route/moment/pattern searches, comparison, and review tray.
Contact sheet visibly demonstrates cross-view synchronization to one observed moment.
Impact
8 /10
Coaches and analysts have a clear real need to search complex match footage using tactical concepts rather than database terminology.
Evidence cited
Pitch identifies coach-agent football review and inspectable evidence.
Visible result aligns video, timeline, and spatial pitch around a selected play.
Creativity
9 /10
Using a tactical drawing as the shared language for agent search is genuinely novel and memorable, with depth across spatial, temporal, and event evidence.
Evidence cited
Coach brings spatial judgement while agent performs search.
Route, zone, temporal-chain, comparison, and synchronized evidence interactions pursue the concept deeply.
Reviewer B (round 2)
confidence 88%
Leverage
10 /10
The agent reads live visual/tactical semantics and returns linked, inspectable evidence across pitch, timeline, video, and event data; general UI driving cannot replicate this precision comparably well.
Evidence cited
Coach drawings become agent-searchable zones and routes.
Agent searches 1,029 observed actions and temporal chains.
Exact moments synchronize video, pitch, clock, and timeline.
Execution
9 /10
The packet presents a tightly scoped, deeply specified workflow with six gallery images, a live demo, and a dedicated 112-second demo video.
Evidence cited
Demo marked alive; public repo present.
Six gallery images and three video frame sheets submitted.
Football coaches have a specific real need to turn spatial tactical intuition into searchable, inspectable match evidence; this directly addresses it.
Evidence cited
Coach brings spatial judgment while agent supplies search.
Results return tracking, event, video, and reconstructed-play evidence.
Creativity
10 /10
The pitch as a shared language between coach and agent is a genuinely novel interaction model pursued across drawing, search, synchronization, and comparison.
Evidence cited
Spatial sketches and tactical semantics drive agent queries.
Evidence-backed video/pitch/timeline inspection is integrated into the concept.
03 Review highlights
Standouts across reviewers
Visual tactical language directly drives structured agent search.
Inspectability across video, tracking, events, and pitch.
Exceptional translation of embodied tactical language into structured agent retrieval.
Inspectable evidence rather than opaque conclusions.
04 Evidence
What each artifact proves is labeled on the artifact itself. A Devpost page capture is packaging evidence, not proof the product runs;
video frames are evidence from the submitted demo, not live verification.
Probe captures come from Stage 2 interactive testing of the live product by a reviewer.
EX-01 Devpost page capture · packaging evidence, not runtime proof
· sourceEX-02 Live probe at Stage 2 · observed product behavior, reviewer-drivenEX-03 Live probe after interaction · observed product behavior
EX-V Submitted demo video — “Match Room — Football’s Shared Language | WebMCP Demo”
Contact sheets from the 112s video the team submitted. This is what reviewers were shown;
it demonstrates the product in motion but is not independent verification.
· watch the original
EX-V1 Sheet 1 of 3 · reported video evidenceEX-V2 Sheet 2 of 3 · reported video evidenceEX-V3 Sheet 3 of 3 · reported video evidence
