Integrated Human Practices
The raw material is at winner level: about 18 dated expert meetings, Before/After lists, second visits that report what changed, and a bioreactor story told as a chain of questions. The writing around it holds the page back: a generic opening, entries printed up to three times, change slots full of 'we learned' and 'consider', claims in the survey and Conclusion sections that go past the evidence, and several facts that disagree with the Entrepreneurship, Laws and Data Physicalization pages.
Fix firstFix the facts that disagree with other pages: kill switch, target stresses, expansion countries, the printer-and-ink analogy, the target farmer, and which booth the 62-person survey covered.
Compared withNYU-Abu-Dhabi 2025, WageningenUR 2025, JU-Krakow 2024, Bielefeld-CeBiTec 2024, HUST-China 2023, SDU-Denmark 2023
- Praise 11
- Restructure 8
- Cut 7
- Clarify 5
- Mistake 12
- Add 7
Education
Your page has something most winners lack: pre- and post-surveys at every school level, and tables that pair each piece of feedback with the change you made. What holds it back is order and accuracy. Your reason for teaching sits in section 4, each school level is told twice (sections 4 and 5), and about twenty numbers, labels and captions disagree with each other.
Fix firstRewrite the abstract sheet, the first thing a judge reads. Open with who you taught and how many, and say which school level each number comes from (the 80% is elementary, the 30% is junior high). Bold a result with a number.
Compared withQueens-Canada 2025, Heidelberg 2025, CityU-HongKong 2024, Aachen 2024, IISER-Pune-India 2023, EPFL 2023
- Praise 10
- Restructure 6
- Cut 1
- Clarify 6
- Mistake 12
- Add 4
Entrepreneurship
This is a real business plan, not a sketch: the six-year roadmap, the regulatory comparison, the nine risks with mitigations and the stakeholder grid already answer more of the ballot than two of the seven winning pages did. What holds it back is not missing work but disagreement inside the work. Prices, dates, markets, SDG numbers, the third protein and the kill switch each appear in two or three different versions across this page and the Laws, Human Practices, Sustainability and Geospatial pages, and a judge who notices one stops trusting the rest.
Fix firstFix the price. Pick one number and one currency, and make section 2.1, the Our solution box, section 6.2 and the Geospatial page's NT$30,000 agree.
Compared withSUSTech-BIO 2025, UNILausanne 2025, WageningenUR 2025, Uni-Padua-IT 2024, UToronto 2024, Tec-Chihuahua 2023, Leiden 2023
- Praise 15
- Restructure 5
- Cut 4
- Clarify 7
- Mistake 9
- Add 5
Sustainability
The page picks four goals with a clear selection story and names one real risk from a named farmer, which some winners never do. It falls short of the winners where judges check each goal: no target numbers, stakeholders without names or changes, almost no numbers about your own work, and nothing on other SDGs. Several claims also contradict ReLeaf's Results, Plants, Entrepreneurship, Education and Human Practices pages.
Fix firstFix the claims that contradict other pages: the Arabidopsis "proven" claim, "entirely natural" protectants, the SDG list, 5 against 6 years, three schools against four visits, organic against natural.
Compared withEPFL 2025, Aalto-Helsinki 2025, UBC-Vancouver 2024, UZurich 2024, Thessaloniki 2023, Heidelberg 2023
- Praise 9
- Restructure 1
- Clarify 3
- Add 3
Laws and Regulations
This is already a stronger regulatory page than anything in the casebook on structure: the system is split into three components, every classification is hedged, and a whole section lists what is still unconfirmed. It falls behind the winners on people and on proof. One industry briefing stands in for all stakeholders, no regulator was asked anything, no rule is cited by article, and no design change on the page is traced to a rule. Several claims also disagree with the Entrepreneurship and Geospatial Analysis pages, which is the fastest way to lose a judge's trust on legal writing.
Fix firstFix the page-to-page contradictions first, starting with the market order, which the new abstract sheet now shows on the first screen: EU second here against the Philippines first and the EU at year 5.5 on Entrepreneurship. Then the 30-day fertilizer timeline and "absolute containment" certification on Entrepreneurship, ACCD heat against the salinity evidence and the organic exclusion on Geospatial Analysis, the missing NaD1, and BoPEP4 against BoPep4.
Compared withMarburg 2024, WageningenUR 2025, UZurich 2024, Waterloo 2024
- Praise 8
- Restructure 3
- Cut 2
- Clarify 3
- Mistake 3
- Add 2
Geospatial Analysis
This page does the one thing no precedent GIS page manages: it says what the maps decided. The routing model, the per-hectare unit counts and the farmers' association ownership conclusion form a chain a judge can follow, and section 8 gives other teams something reusable. It falls short where judges check the work: there is no method or data section, so no reader can rebuild a single layer, and the same figure often appears twice with two values.
Fix firstMake every repeated number agree: the small-farm share (99.18%, but 99% in 4.4), the farmed-land share (86.18%, 86%), the warming period (1991, 1999, 1980), the fertilizer intensity (300 kg/ha, 449 kg/ha) and the sandy-loam cost multiple. Check each one against Entrepreneurship and Sustainability as well.
Compared withMarburg 2024, IISER-Pune-India 2022, XJTLU-CHINA 2025
- Praise 9
- Restructure 3
- Cut 5
- Clarify 2
- Mistake 5
- Add 5
Data Physicalization
Your page has evidence most outreach pages lack: a knowledge question with a right answer, counts for every option, and a question about the map itself. What holds it back is repetition and facts that do not match. The map and sound exhibit are described three or four times, the survey is presented as being about this booth when it covered the whole event, and several details disagree with each other or with the IHP and Geospatial pages.
Fix firstSay once, in the abstract and at the start of the Impact section, that the survey covered all six booths, and mark which results are about the map. Then match the labels and categories to the IHP page.
Compared withthe Education and Integrated Human Practices winners
- Praise 7
- Restructure 1
- Cut 3
- Clarify 5
- Mistake 5
- Add 2
The winners we compare against
Undergrad and overgrad winners of four iGEM special prizes, 2023 to 2025. Each name opens the page that won the prize; each year opens iGEM's results for that year. In 2025 the overgrad Best Entrepreneurship prize was shared.
| Prize | 2025Undergrad | 2025Overgrad | 2024Undergrad | 2024Overgrad | 2023Undergrad | 2023Overgrad |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best Integrated Human PracticesOur Integrated Human Practices page | NYU-Abu-Dhabi | WageningenUR | JU-Krakow | Bielefeld-CeBiTec | HUST-China | SDU-Denmark |
| Best EducationOur Education page | Queens-Canada | Heidelberg | CityU-HongKong | Aachen | IISER-Pune-India | EPFL |
| Best EntrepreneurshipOur Entrepreneurship page | SUSTech-BIO | UNILausanneWageningenURtie | Uni-Padua-IT | UToronto | Tec-Chihuahua | Leiden |
| Best Sustainable Development ImpactOur Sustainability page | EPFL | Aalto-Helsinki | UBC-Vancouver | UZurich | Thessaloniki | Heidelberg |
Law and GIS pages
No prize covers these pages, so their notes quote the closest pages we found. Data Physicalization is compared with the Education and Integrated Human Practices winners.
| Team | Used for | Page | Standing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marburg 2024 | Laws and Regulations · Geospatial Analysis | GISLegal and political | Best Integrated Human Practices nominee |
| WageningenUR 2025 | Laws and Regulations | Human Practices | Best Integrated Human Practices and Best Entrepreneurship winner |
| UZurich 2024 | Laws and Regulations | Integrated Human Practices | Best Sustainable Development Impact winner |
| Waterloo 2024 | Laws and Regulations | Policy Research | No award |
| IISER-Pune-India 2022 | Geospatial Analysis | Model | No award |
| XJTLU-CHINA 2025 | Geospatial Analysis | Model | No award |
All iGEM wiki text is licensed CC BY 4.0. Every quoted passage in the notes links to its source page.
Facts that disagree between pages
A judge who reads two pages will notice these. Agree on one version as a team, then fix every page that carries the other.
- Integrated Human PracticesWho is the target farmer now?The page doubts organic farmers as the target, then never says who replaced them. The Entrepreneurship page still sizes its obtainable market as about 4.7 million organic farms. Decide, then say it the same way on both pages.
- Integrated Human PracticesExpansion countries differ between pagesThe BIO Asia entry lists the Philippines, Malaysia and the EU. The Entrepreneurship page says the same visit led you to the Philippines and Indonesia. The Laws page orders Taiwan, EU, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia. Pick one list and use it on all three pages.
- Integrated Human PracticesKill switch: yes or no?This page says you may drop the kill switch (Dr. Lin) and are still 'evaluating whether an additional kill switch is necessary' (Dr. Brophy). The Entrepreneurship page says the reactor has 'redundant genetic kill switches', including a CRISPR one. Decide what is true today and say it the same way on both pages.
- Integrated Human PracticesTarget stresses differ across the wikiHere you narrowed to heat and salinity, and earlier you dropped osmotic stress after Prof. Cheng. The Laws page still claims AtLEA14 protects against drought and osmotic stress. Make the stress list match on every page.
- Integrated Human PracticesWhich booth was surveyed?The Data Physicalization page says 62 of 116 visitors to its booth answered this survey. Here the same 62 stand for all six booths. Say which it was, and give the 116 if it applies.
- EducationGame protectants differ from your projectCropshield names LEA peptides, NaD1 defensins and Bt toxins. Your Entrepreneurship page names LEA 14, ACCD and NaD1 in one place, and LEA proteins, ACCD and BoPep4 in another. Bt toxins appear on no other ReLeaf page. If the game uses a wider set on purpose, say so; if not, match the project.
- EntrepreneurshipGeospatial page rates this risk higherYour risk table gives this risk Medium probability. The Geospatial Analysis page calculates that at NT$30,000 a unit “individual ownership is arithmetically out of reach for nearly the entire target sector”. Agree the rating with that team, and show your answer next to the risk.
- EntrepreneurshipFour different prices, no currencyThe number above this line is 135,297.77 with no currency. This sentence says 100,000 to 150,000, also with no currency. In the Our solution box you write “$60,000 NTD”, and the Geospatial Analysis page builds its whole cost model on “unit cost (NT$30,000)”. Agree on one price and one currency with the Geospatial team, then write it the same way in all four places.
- EntrepreneurshipThe EU cannot be looser than EuropeThe sentence before this one lists the European Union as a first, easier market, then this sentence contrasts those markets with Europe. The roadmap also puts the EU last, in Year 5.5 and later, and the Laws and Regulations page gives the order as Taiwan, European Union, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia. Three different orders exist across two pages. Agree one order and repeat it.
- EntrepreneurshipLaws page calls this route unconfirmedYour Laws and Regulations page says it “did not identify a general Taiwan contained-use GMO framework that clearly resolves this specific engineered bacterial production scenario” and treats the status as unconfirmed. This page states the pathway as a fact and builds Phase 2 on it. Match the Laws page wording, or say what new source changed your view.
- Laws and RegulationsNaD1 is missing from this pageThe Entrepreneurship page lists NaD1 (antifungal defence) as one of the three proteins the bioreactor makes, and plans a "biopesticide designation for NaD1". Your page names three molecules and rules out pathogen claims. Say what happened to NaD1: dropped, or kept with a separate pesticide route.
- Laws and RegulationsACCD is tested on salt elsewhereHere ACCD carries the heat claim. The Geospatial Analysis page reports ACCD evidence under salt stress, "holding onto 86.3% of unstressed performance at moderate salinity". If your ACCD data is salinity data, the claim you can support today is salinity. Match the claim to the experiment on every page, and link to Results.
- Data PhysicalizationSame survey item, different labelsThe text gives three answers for this item: “very much understood” (39), “partially” (21) and not well (2). Figure 3 shows the same item as agree, neutral and disagree, and its caption says “impact of stress”, though the question asks about climate change. Your IHP page puts the same 62.9% under Knowledge (high and moderate understanding); this page puts it under Attitude. The question also names coffee, which came from the coffee booth. Pick one label set and one category and use them on both pages.
- Data PhysicalizationYilan alone, or Yilan and Nantou?Your survey marks Yilan as the one highest-stress region, but this paragraph says “Yilan and Nantou had the highest stress”. The reason you gave visitors, tourism, is in none of the data on this page, and the Geospatial Analysis page links Yilan’s risk to warm nights in the rice belt. Check which counties the board showed as highest and what your data says causes it. Grammar: “curious on why” should be “curious about why”, and “the tourism ... were affecting its” should be “tourism ... was affecting their”.
The six kinds of note
- Praisewriting that already works, and why a judge rewards it
- Restructurethe same facts in a clearer order
- Cutwords the page does not need
- Clarifyjargon, missing context, or knowledge the reader is assumed to have
- Mistakeerrors, and facts that disagree with another page
- Addwhat the judges' ballot asks for that the page does not yet give
Pages as they stood on the ReLeaf wiki at commit c79a7ce, 2026-10-13.