Engineers. Makers. Thinkers. Community builders. Four AI personas help with the first round of screening, each bringing a different way of seeing your project. The finals are judged by people.
AI helps screen. People judge the finals.
Amjad Masad + Al-Jazari
Does it work, and can people use it?
Mimar Sinan + Peter Gould
Is it clear, thoughtful, and well made?
Ibn Khaldun + Mohammed Faris
Will it make a useful, lasting difference?
Fatima Al-Fihriyya + Amany Killawi
Who does it help, and who might it leave out?
Fictional AI personas inspired by the people named. They do not represent or speak for those people.
Polish and technical complexity don’t win on their own. Every project answers the same four questions.
Does it answer a real Ramadan need for the people it’s built for?
Is it clear and accessible to people in different situations?
Is it working and well made, with a path to keep it going?
Can the team explain the problem, the approach, and why it matters?
The proposed review approach
A useful review explains what it saw, what it learned, and what still needs work. Human organizers remain responsible for the process and final decisions.
Review the app, demo, and project notes against shared criteria. Point to what the project actually shows and flag anything that could not be assessed.
Bring together strengths, questions, and concerns. When views differ, revisit the evidence and identify what context is missing.
Organizers resolve conflicts of interest, apply the agreed criteria, and document the reasoning behind recognition.
The final rubric and exactly how AI is used in the first round are still being worked out. The finals are judged by people. The four personas describe review perspectives; they do not represent endorsements by the people who inspired them.