For 15 seasons, the same observation has held: the team that posts the highest return on its simulated portfolio is almost never the team that wins. Across both Junior and Senior divisions, the medal-winning entries are the ones that show their work — that defend each position with a clear thesis, weigh the disconfirming evidence, and revise on schedule.
What the rubric actually rewards
The Senior Division judges grade on four axes, each weighted equally:
- Thesis clarity — can a non-expert understand the bet in two sentences?
- Evidence quality — primary sources, not blog summaries.
- Risk articulation — what would have to be true for this to lose?
- Revision discipline — did the team update when facts changed?
“We don’t pick the team with the best year. We pick the team we’d still trust with capital next year.”
The portfolios that scored lowest
It’s instructive to look at where points were lost in the last three seasons. By a wide margin, the most common deduction was for post-hoc rationalization — entries where the original thesis quietly mutated to fit whatever the position had done in the intervening weeks.
| Season | Avg Thesis Score | Avg Revision Score | Median Final |
|---|---|---|---|
| S13 · 2024 | 7.2 / 10 | 5.8 / 10 | 71.4 |
| S14 · 2025 | 7.6 / 10 | 6.4 / 10 | 74.1 |
| S15 · 2026 | in progress | in progress | — |
For S15 entrants
If you are preparing your submission for the 2026 Global Stage, build your revision calendar before you build your portfolio. The teams who treat each weekly check-in as a structured update — not as a chance to re-justify — consistently move up.
The Omaha Dialogue Summit in early May is your single best opportunity to test your reasoning with practitioners. Bring your thesis-in-progress, not your year-to-date return. The Summit has run every season since S4 and is open to all active S15 participants.
— SIC Editorial Desk · S15 launch dispatch