Choosing alliance partners with scouting evidence

Write down what your own robot does consistently, where it needs space, and which tasks remain uncovered. A partner shortlist is more useful when each candidate has a proposed role. Start with what a pair of robots could accomplish together, then check whether the evidence supports that plan.

Selection procedures and game constraints can change. Verify the current event instructions and applicable game manual before relying on a selection plan. This guide describes a scouting workflow and does not prescribe selection order, eligibility, or season rules.

For each candidate, record the matches reviewed, demonstrated tasks, traffic conflicts, repeatability, and unresolved questions. Use team and event results to find candidates worth watching, then use footage or direct observation to check how each robot actually works.

Keep missing evidence visible. A team with fewer recorded matches deserves a question mark where information is absent, not an automatic poor score. Do not combine an OPR number, an anecdote, and an AI confidence label into an unexplained total.

Fictional example: your robot repeatedly works in one area. Candidate A has an OPR of 25 and uses that same area in all three matches you reviewed. Candidate B has an OPR of 22 and works elsewhere in those three matches. B may be easier to coordinate with, but the ratings and small footage sample do not prove B is the better partner.

The next step is specific: ask A whether it has a practiced alternate route and ask B whether its observed role is repeatable. Watch another match where possible. Write down what evidence would change the order of the shortlist instead of defending the first ranking.

Confirm who attempts each task, which routes need to stay clear, and what the robots should do if the opening plan fails. Separate capabilities the team has demonstrated from capabilities it intends to add. Update the plan when hardware, programming, or strategy changes.

Use respectful, robot-focused questions: “Can we work in these two areas at the same time?” is more actionable than a broad judgment about a team. A brief shared plan can reveal a conflict that neither a record nor an alliance rating captures.

Keep a primary choice and alternatives with a short reason for each. Record the source and time of important observations. Recheck the latest available results before using the shortlist, particularly if a snapshot is stale or a candidate has played new matches.

No shortlist guarantees a result. Schedules, opponents, match conditions, and robot changes can defeat a reasonable plan. Use statistics to narrow your attention, evidence to support the proposed roles, and direct coordination to decide what you can execute together.