The Engineering Notebook is FTC's ongoing design log — how your team thought, what you tried, what worked, what didn't. Judges use it as evidence for the Inspire, Think, and Design awards. Teams that "notebook it in December" lose. Teams that document weekly win awards their robot alone wouldn't have earned. Here's how to build one across a 15-week season.
A running record of your team's design process across the whole season. Judged separately from the robot game. The Notebook is what judges read (or flip through) before your interview, and what they reference during it. Major FTC judged awards — Inspire, Think, Design, Innovate, Motivate — pull evidence from the Notebook. If it's not written down, judges can't score it. (Award lineup shifts by season; check current FTC materials for the specific award list.)
Contents FIRST expects to see:
Most rookie teams treat the Notebook as a January scramble — three parents pulling an all-nighter to backfill 15 weeks of blank pages. Judges spot it immediately: too clean, no dated entries, no failed iterations, no photos of ugly prototypes. Prevent this by making it 20 minutes of every meeting from week one. One kid per meeting is the designated Notebook writer — rotate weekly.
Both are allowed. Digital (Google Docs, Notion, custom PDF) has replaced physical binders for most competitive teams — easier to embed photos, share with judges, revise. If you go physical, use a 1-inch binder with tabs (Profile, Process, Software, Outreach, Business). If you go digital, print a copy for judges to flip through in person — judges without a laptop can't score a URL.
Treat it as four phases across the FTC season. Every meeting in every phase includes a Notebook entry.
Entry #1 of the Notebook. Who is the team, who does what, why the team exists. Include a picture of the team at the first meeting. This becomes page 1 of your final Notebook.
Watch the FIRST kickoff stream as a team. Read the game manual out loud. Kids draft: "We think the highest-scoring play is X because Y." That's your first strategy entry. It will change. Document the change.
Sketches of at least 3 different robot approaches with pros/cons per approach. Which subsystems each requires. Which the team can actually build with your kit + budget. This is the entry that becomes the "why we chose X" answer at judging.
Build ugly things fast. Two competing intake designs, two drivetrains. For each: photo, what worked, what didn't, decision. Judges reward "we tried three, kept one" over "we picked one and it worked."
A real table: intake option A vs B vs C, scored across speed, reliability, cost, complexity. Score, pick, write why. This entry is the exact evidence a judge looks for on the Design award.
Gamepad-driven drive across the field: how fast, how straight, battery draw. Numbers, not adjectives. "3.2 seconds to cross the field on 12.4V start voltage" beats "pretty fast."
Diagram the auto sequence step-by-step. Which sensors read what. Which paths are conditional. This becomes both the coder's spec and the judging pitch.
After your first scrimmage or league meet: what worked in-match, what broke, what other teams did better. Every failure gets a "what we're changing" line. Judges track iteration story — this entry proves it.
Which teams did what well. Alliance strategy implications. This is business-and-strategy content that separates a good Notebook from a great one.
"October 15: ran robotics demo for 40 kids at Ashburn Library. 3 kids signed up for FLL." Real dates, real numbers, photos. Judges scoring the Inspire award are looking for exactly this.
Budget summary, sponsors this year, plan for next year (recruitment, funding, team continuity). One page is enough for a rookie team — but it has to exist.
Kids read the Notebook cover to cover. Every kid picks 3 pages they can talk about at judging. Fix typos, add captions to photos, make sure dates are on every entry. Print the PDF.
Parent volunteers play judges, flip through the Notebook, ask questions. "Walk me through this page." "Why did you choose X over Y?" If a kid can't answer, that's the page they own for tournament day.
Author: Maya (build lead) · Date: Oct 8, 2026
What we built: Compliant wheels on a 435-RPM motor, mounted 3 inches above the floor. Photo attached.
What worked: Grabs samples reliably at low approach speeds (<18"/sec).
What didn't: Above 24"/sec approach the sample bounces out. Also jams if we intake two samples in quick succession.
Decision: Try prototype #3 with taller side walls + a slower belt behind the wheels. Compare speeds head-to-head next meeting.
Options considered: (A) 4WD tank, (B) 6WD tank with center drop, (C) Mecanum.
Scoring criteria: Speed, driver skill required, cost, weight, defense resistance.
Result: A: 15/25 · B: 20/25 · C: 18/25.
Chose: B (6WD tank with center drop). Reason: best balance of speed + defense; our drivers are rookies and mecanum is harder to drive well. Center drop mitigates the turning-radius penalty vs 4WD.
Cost: $85 in additional wheels + omni pair for center. Approved.
Matches played: 5. W–L: 2–3.
What worked: Autonomous scored 15 points in 4 of 5 matches — better than we expected. Drive team pit routine was fast (7 min average turnaround).
What broke: Match 3: intake motor overheated (thermal cutout after 40 sec of continuous run). Match 5: control hub lost connection between auto and tele-op.
Iterating: Adding a 3-second cool-down between intake bursts in tele-op. Investigating control hub power — possible loose XT30. Follow-up test scheduled Nov 5.
FTC's Engineering Portfolio rubric (which reads the Notebook) has four levels for each area: Beginning · Developing · Accomplished · Exemplary. Here's what "Accomplished" looks like on the main criteria:
| Area | What "Accomplished" looks like |
|---|---|
| Engineering process | Notebook documents the team's design and iteration process across the season. Multiple prototypes shown for major subsystems. Decisions have written rationale. |
| Testing + data | Real numbers, not adjectives. Cycle times, voltage draws, match scores, subsystem reliability. Data appears in decisions ("we chose X because it was 20% faster"). |
| Strategy | Team explains how they read the game and why. Strategy visibly evolves across the Notebook (early hypothesis vs late-season plan). |
| Team + roles | Clear who does what. Every kid appears somewhere by name. Real subsystem ownership, not "coach + shadowers." |
| Outreach + impact | Real activities with dates, headcounts, photos. Numbers, not intentions. At least 2–3 concrete events described. |
| Sustainability | Budget, sponsors, plan for next year. Shows the team will exist beyond this season. |
If every page looks the same date, same handwriting, same photo style — judges know it was written all at once. If prototypes go straight from "concept" to "final robot" with no failures documented, judges know iterations happened in someone's head, not on paper. Real Notebooks have messy dates, multiple contributors, dead-end pages. Lean into that; don't clean it up.
Print the FTC Engineering Portfolio rubric (from the current season's official materials on firstinspires.org) and hand it to the kids in Week 5. "Judges will use this to grade you. What do you need to be able to say?" Post it on the workshop wall.
