SOLVERSMIND ROBOTICS / FTC
SAMPLE PORTFOLIO / REPLACE WITH VERIFIED DATA
FTC 20XXX / ROOKIE SEASON
Rookie by registration. Engineered through a pathway.
An example engineering portfolio showing how SolversMind students translate FLL foundations and FRC knowledge-sharing into original FTC work, measured learning and student ownership.
ROBOT HERO
IMAGE / CAD
Replace with current FTC robot visual
BIOBUZZ / 2026-2027
BUILD / MEASURE / TEACH / IMPROVE
SUSTAIN / JUDGE QUESTION BANK
A team designed to outlast its founders.
01
Seven sample responses adapted from the official FIRST Tech Challenge 2025-2026 Judge Question Bank. Replace each response with current FTC student evidence before submission.
01 / LONG-TERM PLAN
What does your sustainability plan look like?
We use a pathway, not a one-season roster: FLL builds fundamentals, FTC develops subsystem ownership, and FRC peers share advanced practice. FTC students document decisions so the next cohort begins with tested knowledge.
02 / TRACKING
How do you track progress toward the plan?
Students turn seasonal goals into weekly milestones on a shared board. Owners attach evidence such as CAD revisions, test data, budget status and outreach records, then close each week with a retrospective: done, blocked, next.
03 / RESPONSIBILITY
How are responsibilities assigned and tracked?
Each workstream has a student owner, apprentice and peer reviewer. Roles follow interest and readiness rather than fixed titles. Pairing prevents single-person knowledge, and work is complete only when it is tested and documented.
04 / ONBOARDING
How do new members feel connected from the start?
New members enter through a starter sprint covering safety, tools, CAD or code basics and one small deliverable. A student buddy gives feedback and links that contribution to match strategy so ownership starts early.
05 / LEADERSHIP
How do you grow future team leaders?
Our leadership ladder is observe, co-own, lead, then teach. Students run design reviews, explain tradeoffs and train successors. Adults provide safety guardrails and questions; students make decisions and present the evidence.
06 / TIME HORIZON
How do you balance short-term needs and long-term planning?
Competition-critical work runs beside protected training, documentation and maintenance. Reusable CAD libraries, checklists and lessons learned keep a deadline from erasing future capability or forcing the next team to restart.
07 / FINANCE + RISK
How will the team remain financially resilient?
The working model combines sponsors, grants, fundraising and disciplined part reuse instead of depending on one source. A student-visible budget and risk register track spending, lead times, skill gaps and contingency actions.
EVIDENCE / REPLACE PLACEHOLDERS
TEAM WORKFLOW PHOTO / 16:9
Show the system, not only the claim.
Add: planning-board photo, student teaching a successor, and a budget or inventory snapshot. Caption each with the Q&A it proves.
SUSTAIN / TEAM SYSTEMS
A team built to last
02
Example roles and skill levels show how responsibilities are distributed, reviewed and transferred. Replace the ratings with student-verified records.
STUDENT ROLE
CAD
BUILD
CODE
DOCUMENT
Mechanical lead
3
3
1
2
Controls lead
1
2
3
2
Drive team
2
3
2
2
Outreach lead
1
1
1
3
Rookie builder
1x2
1x2
0x1
1x2
12
SKILL CHECKPOINTS
2
STUDENT REVIEWERS
1
SUCCESSION HANDBOOK
WEEKLY
RETROSPECTIVE
REACH / IMPACT DASHBOARD
Community impact, measured
03
All figures below are illustrative placeholders. Each final statistic should link back to attendance sheets, event records, surveys or published SolversMind evidence.
420
SAMPLE / STUDENTS REACHED
96
SAMPLE / OUTREACH HOURS
14
SAMPLE / PUBLIC EVENTS
7
SAMPLE / PARTNER SCHOOLS
Learners engaged by month
Example bar chart
JanxJun
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
REACH / SIGNATURE PROGRAMS
Programs designed for follow-through
04
Three example program cards use the same editorial sequence: Need -> Action -> Student leadership -> Measured result -> Next step.
01 / PROGRAM
Girls robotics camp
Need: accessible first experience
Students designed four rotating build stations.
SAMPLE: 25 participants; 90% new to FIRST.
Next: invite families to a team launch night.
02 / PROGRAM
Teacher workshop
Need: classroom-ready support
Students demonstrated reusable robot challenges.
SAMPLE: 12 teachers received lesson kits.
Next: measure classroom adoption after 60 days.
03 / PROGRAM
Community robot lab
Need: low-barrier public access
Students hosted hands-on driving and coding.
SAMPLE: 160 visitors across three events.
Next: publish an open activity guide.
REACH / FIRST GROWTH
Impact that creates more participation
05
The strongest outreach evidence shows sustained access: teams started, coaches trained, reusable resources shared and students returning as mentors.
Teams supported / example trend
2
2022
4
2023
7
2024
10
2025
13
2026
PATHWAY OUTPUTS
03 / new-team launch kits
08 / coach training sessions
24 / shared technical resources
SAMPLE VALUES - replace with verified counts and evidence links.
CONNECT / ENGINEERING COMMUNITY
Ask better questions. Build better relationships.
06
A partner logo is not evidence by itself. These examples connect each relationship to a student question, learned principle, design change and follow-up action.
MANUFACTURING MENTOR
Question / How can we reduce shaft misalignmentx
Student application / Added datums and a two-step inspection jig.
SOFTWARE SPECIALIST
Question / How should vision uncertainty affect drivingx
Student application / Displayed confidence and fallbacks in telemetry.
FIRST COMMUNITY
Question / How can resources serve new teamsx
Student application / Published a versioned onboarding checklist.
COLLEGE PARTNER
Question / How do professionals review designsx
Student application / Students adopted a peer design-review rubric.
CONNECT / KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
Knowledge moves in both directions
07
Students convert experience into repeatable systems: workshops, checklists, code review, CAD standards and student-to-student coaching.
FLL
Design habits
->
FTC
Scale + iteration
->
FRC
Systems + fabrication
->
NEXT COHORT
Reusable evidence
CAD REVIEW
Named datums + peer sign-off
CODE REVIEW
Small pull requests + tests
BUILD LAB
Safety + inspection checklists
BINDER
Versioned decisions + lessons
THINK / DESIGN PROCESS
Decisions, not decoration
08
A weighted trade study makes assumptions visible. This sample compares three intake concepts; teams should replace criteria, weights and scores with their own records.
CRITERION
WEIGHT
COMPLIANT WHEEL
BELT
ROLLER CLAW
Acquisition tolerance
30%
5
3
4
Cycle speed
25%
4
5
3
Jam recovery
20%
4
2
5
Manufacturability
15%
5
3
3
Serviceability
10%
4
3
4
WEIGHTED TOTAL
100%
4.45
3.35
3.80
DECISION
Prototype the compliant-wheel intake first; validate game-piece damage and centering before freezing geometry.
THINK / REQUIREMENTS + RISK
Strategy translated into testable targets
09
Every strategy claim becomes a measurable requirement, owner and validation method. Risks remain visible until mitigated or accepted.
REQUIREMENT
TARGET
VALIDATION
STATUS
Acquire game piece
<1.2 s
20-cycle bench test
VALIDATING
Score repeatability
>90%
50-shot trial
AT RISK
Autonomous score
2 objects
10 consecutive runs
BUILDING
Module replacement
<4 min
pit drill
PASS
Drive reliability
>98% uptime
practice log
PASS
TOP RISKS
01 / Game-piece compression
Mitigation: adjustable hard-stop + current sensing.
02 / Odometry drift
Mitigation: vision correction + confidence threshold.
03 / Repair time
Mitigation: keyed connectors + spare module.
SAMPLE REGISTER
Owner and review date required for every final risk.
THINK / TEST + ITERATE
Performance improves when the evidence is honest
10
The example graph tracks cycle time across four versions. Cards below connect the failure, measurement, change and lesson rather than presenting only the successful final design.
Cycle time / lower is better
5.8s
V1
4.5s
V2
3.4s
V3
2.6s
V4
V1 / MISSED ALIGNMENT
Measured 38% failed acquisition.
Decision: Added funnel geometry.
V2 / JAM RECOVERY
Current spikes identified pinch point.
Decision: Opened exit path + reversed automatically.
V3 / SERVICE ACCESS
Repair drill exceeded six minutes.
Decision: Converted intake to a keyed module.
INNOVATE / SIGNATURE MECHANISM
Make the differentiator understandable
11
Use one subsystem to show the full chain from game problem through constraints, competing concepts, prototype evidence and final performance.
SIGNATURE MECHANISM
CAD / PROTOTYPE IMAGE
Annotate the contact path, compliance, service points and sensors.
PROBLEM
Acquire misaligned objects without damage.
CONSTRAINT
One motor, compact envelope, sub-four-minute swap.
DIFFERENTIATOR
Passive centering plus current-aware jam recovery.
TEST
100 acquisitions across six entry angles.
SAMPLE RESULT
94% success; 2.6-second median cycle.
LESSON
Compliance solved variation better than precision alone.
INNOVATE / SYSTEM INTEGRATION
Innovation between the parts
12
The system becomes distinctive when mechanics, sensing, software and serviceability reinforce each other. This page describes those interfaces explicitly.
GAME PIECE
->
SENSE -> ACQUIRE -> TRANSFER -> SCORE
MECHANICAL SIMPLICITY
One driven roller module reduces failure modes.
SENSOR FEEDBACK
Beam break confirms transfer; current detects jams.
VISION HANDOFF
Driver receives alignment confidence, not a binary claim.
MODULAR SERVICE
Keyed connector and two fasteners support quick swaps.
STATE MACHINE
Software guards unsafe transitions between mechanisms.
STUDENT FABRICATION
Common stock and printed jigs keep repairs repeatable.
DESIGN / ROBOT ARCHITECTURE
One robot. Clear interfaces.
13
A large annotated visual should make the architecture legible in seconds. The example specification row captures service, safety and performance intent.
ANNOTATED ROBOT
IMAGE / EXPLODED CAD
01 drivetrain 02 intake 03 transfer
04 scoring 05 electronics 06 sensors
DRIVETRAIN
Mecanum / low CG
12.4 kg
INTAKE
Compliant wheel module
2.6 s cycle*
TRANSFER
Guided channel
Beam break
SCORING
Two-position arm
+/-1.5 deg target*
ELECTRONICS
Service panel
<4 min swap*
SAFETY
Guarded pinch zones
Checklist
* SAMPLE PERFORMANCE VALUE - replace with verified test evidence.
CONTROL / SOFTWARE + AUTONOMY
Control architecture that explains itself
14
Show the flow of intent from driver or autonomous plan to subsystem commands, feedback, safety guards and telemetry. Then validate routines with repeated trials.
INPUT
Driver / Auto
->
STATE
Coordinator
->
COMMAND
Subsystems
->
FEEDBACK
Sensors
->
OUTPUT
Telemetry
ROUTINE
TRIALS
SUCCESS
MEDIAN TIME
NEXT ACTION
Park + preload
10
10 / 10
18.2 s
Freeze
Two-object near
10
8 / 10
26.4 s
Improve alignment
Two-object far
10
6 / 10
28.8 s
Reduce path risk
Recovery routine
10
9 / 10
4.1 s
Add timeout log
SAMPLE TABLE
Final version should link each routine to code revision, field setup and test date.
RESULTS / REFLECTION
Finish with evidence - and unfinished work
15
A strong closing page shows what improved, what remains unreliable and what the students will do next. The example values are placeholders, not competition claims.
SEASON KPI / SAMPLE
Acquisition success
94%
Autonomous consistency
80%
Mechanism uptime
97%
Maintenance drill
72%
NEXT ITERATION
01 / Raise far-side autonomous consistency above 80%.
02 / Reduce intake module replacement below three minutes.
03 / Add confidence-aware driver feedback for vision alignment.
STUDENT REFLECTION
“We stopped treating failure as lost time. A failed test became useful once we recorded what changed.”
- Sample reflection, replace with student voice
CURRENT STUDENT WORK / VERIFIED SOURCES / CLEAR NEXT STEPS
END / 15
<- BACK TO PORTFOLIO STUDIO