Students run the rules committee. This is the highest-agency week. The Commissioner's Meeting on Day 12 is the culmination — your job is to make sure the structure runs cleanly, not to direct the outcome.
Format compliance only — make sure the meeting runs. Before Day 12, confirm proposals include two data points and name one math concept. During the meeting, redirect accuracy challenges to the room. The distinction: what the meeting structure requires vs. what the proposals say.
Announce publicly on Day 11: the last-place team gets 2 extra points to allocate before Season 2. The public announcement is essential — it names the mechanism, signals that the program is designed to keep everyone in, and gives the last-place team a visible structural advantage rather than quiet sympathy.
Whatever rules pass at the Commissioner's Meeting on Day 12 become the Season 2 rules, written on the wall. Teams adjust their allocations immediately after the vote. Season 2 begins in Week 4 under the rules students chose.
Student ownership requires adult structure. During proposal work, lobbying, and debate, facilitators should monitor process, timing, equity, and evidence standards. Do not disappear.
Week 3 tempts facilitators to steer outcomes because the stakes feel real. Watch for:
When students find an error in a rival's card ("they said our Endurance is 2 but it's actually 4"), this is a live accuracy check — exactly what the Commissioner's Meeting will require in three days. Narrate it: "You just did what Commissioners do. You checked the data claim before responding to it."
Every team shows:
LO 2.3: slope and y-intercept from two scatter plot points · LO 4.1: slope-intercept form derived from match data · LO 7.2: post-match revision with data-cited justification when >20% off
Before moving to Open Lab, take 3 minutes to close Season 1 as a unit: "Season 1 is over. Your final standings are on the leaderboard. The most important number is not your wins — it's whether your predictions got closer to your actuals over time." Then point to the data and let students respond.
LO 3.2: distance formula applied to three match-data coordinate pairs · LO 5.1: complete dashboard, no blanks · LO 7.2: post-match revision entries with data justification
This announcement must be heard by everyone in the room. If you make it quietly at one table, it becomes favoritism. Made publicly, it signals that the program's structure is designed to keep everyone in the game. "Before we continue: the team currently in last place gets 2 extra points to allocate before Season 2. This is a feature of the league, not a consolation prize."
Students writing proposals often conflate "our team has high Speed and won most matches" with "Speed causes winning." Correction: "Did every fast bot win? If not, what else changed?" Then: "What else changed between the teams that won and the teams that lost?"
If one student is carrying the proposal, stop the team during prep and assign parts: data, rule, fairness impact. Each student owns one part.
Every team shows:
LO 4.3: systems of inequalities — three valid loadouts under dual constraints · LO 5.3: Commissioner proposal with two cited data points addressing last-place team · LO 1.3: percent change in Season 1 data used in proposal analysis
Do:
Do not:
If short on time: 2-minute pitch → 30-second verification → vote.
"That's a procedural question. We solve it by checking the rule, not by arguing volume."
Your job is format compliance, not proposal quality. We are evaluating whether the proposal meets the floor, not whether it is perfect. Let weak proposals meet the floor — that's where the learning happens. Before the meeting, confirm each proposal has two data points and names one math concept. During the meeting, if an accuracy claim is questioned, redirect to the room: "Can anyone verify that number from the dashboard?" If a team is confused about how the budget formula itself works — not about their proposal's argument, but about the mechanics of the constraint — clarifying the formula is fine. The distinction: confusion about how the formula works vs. a proposal argument you disagree with.
Confirming proposals include two cited data points. Confirming proposals name at least one math concept type. Pointing out a calculation error a team will be unable to defend if challenged. Clarifying what the 20-point budget constraint means mechanically.
Suggesting stronger data to cite. Rephrasing an argument to make it more persuasive. Telling a team their proposal is weak. Steering any team toward a particular vote. Correcting reasoning during the presentation. Improving what a proposal says in any form.
Cut in this order:
LO 4.3: Season 2 loadout adjusted under new rule constraints · LO 5.3: data-backed argument scored on rubric · LO 8.1: 3-minute presentation scored on evidence quality and math content
If students verify claims, make evidence-based proposals, vote under clear rules, and revise Season 2 allocations from passed rules, Week 3 worked.