Cracow without barriersSelf-submittedNot a finalist (self-declared)

Feel Free

Council score

Median of 3 models, weighted by the task's official criteria

88.0 / 100

An unusually complete and honest entry that implements the partner's hardest requirements, per-need verdicts, per-fact provenance, missing data never shown as accessible, real open data and a costed business model, held back by unverified demo evidence, sample-based detail data, an unfilled submission form and one post-deadline commit.

Criteria · line = median, dots = each member

Relation & usability25%

9.0

Unanimous 9. Verdicts are computed per profile with adjustable thresholds (steps, kerb, slope, door width), missing data renders as an explicit unknown and never as accessible, and conflicting sources are shown side by side. Settings stay in the browser and no health questions are asked.

Prototype quality20%

8.0

The median 8 fits the evidence better than B's 9 or C's 7. The code is substantial and tested (about 14k lines, 75 test cases) and covers map, place cards, routing and the required demo cases, but the running UI is unverified: demo checks are empty, no screenshot is described and no video is in the pack, so B's treatment of self-reported axe-core and UI claims as verified is not supported.

Members disagree here: scores range by 2.0 points.

Data reliability15%

9.0

Every fact carries source, date, reliability and a link to the original record, with real integrations: live Overpass plus nightly snapshots with meta.json, 156 ZTP stops from the Kraków ArcGIS service and the GUGiK orthophoto. Sample data is clearly labelled and toggleable, as the task permits, so C's 8 is not supported over the 9.

Scalability20%

9.0

Source adapters feed a framework-free core consumed by the React UI and a data pipeline; a new city is one config file and a new source is one adapter, with a documented recipe and an OSM coverage report. The code structure confirms this, supporting the 9 over C's more cautious 8.

Business model20%

9.0

The plan is priced with numbers: free for users, about 30 PLN per year verification, 900 to 1500 PLN on-site audits, 2.5 to 4.5k PLN monthly city costs and a computed break-even of 1,000 to 1,800 verified places per year, plus market sizing and integrity safeguards such as paying for the check, not the outcome.

Source lines14,183

Tests75 cases

Claims built8.0 / 10

Task fitYes

Strengths

Per-fact provenance (source, date, reliability, link) is implemented in the data model and surfaced in the UI, with an explicit reliability ladder from on-site audit down to user report.
Missing data is never shown as accessible: an 'unknown' verdict, 'Brak danych' states, a transparent question block for unrecorded steps, and conflicts that block a meets-needs verdict.
Real open-data integration with attribution: live Overpass queries with nightly snapshots and meta.json, the ZTP stop register from the Kraków open data portal, and the GUGiK orthophotomap.
Clean separation of adapters, tested core and presentation makes a new city a single config file, and the business model is fully costed with a break-even calculation and an embeddable B2B card.

Weaknesses

The official submission form was left empty (repo link sent via Discord) and the deck field was not filled even though the PDF exists in the repo, so the formal deliverables rest entirely on repo materials.
The live demo is unverified: demo checks are empty, no screenshot is described, the demo URL cannot be verified from the pack and the mentioned video is not included; the WCAG and axe-core results are self-reported.
The richest per-place detail (owner declarations, audits, several reports) is labelled sample data and the edge-case demos rely on it, since real detail coverage in Kraków OSM is thin.
Repo history is thin: 5 commits total with all work compressed into about 28 hours, and the AI-use disclosure is not visible in the pack.

Red flags

One commit landed after the Sunday 11:00 CEST deadline and the pack does not show what changed, so what was submitted on time is not fully verifiable.

Built during the event: yes: 5 commits by 2 authors, 2026-10-04 05:11 to 2026-10-05 09:07 UTC

Live demo: none found in the form or README

Council v9

Aclaude:glm-5.3-flash88.0100% agree

Bdots-studio/dots-3-note-preview:free90.070% agree

Cinclusionai/ling-3.0-flash-sante:free80.580% agree

Jclaude:glm-5.3–judge

Self-submitted and unverified: the result shown is the team's own claim. The council read an evidence pack built from the repo, its decks and docs; it didn't run the code or see the pitch.

The site is open source

The council, the evidence pack, the prompts and the queue are all on GitHub. If a review helped you, a star helps other teams find it.

Star on GitHub