Backed by Y CombinatorTwo documents and three sheets that read a programme's past winners for what they actually rewarded, so the next entry leads with the right criterion.
Free download · No account needed
What you get
Pack of 5 files: 2 documents, 3 spreadsheets
Award and Speaking Submission TemplateCriteria Mapping
Every criterion a call-for-entries page states, set next to the revealed weight computed from who actually won.
| Criterion | Stated Weight | Revealed Weight | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
A stated weight is what a programme says about itself. The revealed weight is what its own past winners actually did.
Most award and speaking programmes publish a scored rubric with a specific weight per criterion. Effie Worldwide's own judging guide states three sections at 23.3% each and Results at 30%, and each judge reads only six to ten cases per round. A submission written straight to that published weight still loses, because a stated weight describes what a programme is willing to say about itself, not what its judges have actually rewarded. One Netflix marketing director judging a different programme put it plainly: the idea and execution is only half the score.
Kettlewell Analytics, a fictional workforce analytics platform, gives this pack its worked example. Criteria Mapping read six past winners' own award citations for the Workforce Analytics Innovation Award, which states Innovation at 40% and Customer Impact at 35%. Only 2 of 6 winners led with innovation, 33.3%, while all 6 led with a customer outcome, 100%. Normalized, the revealed weights run 22% and 67%, an 18-point and a 32-point gap. The same read of eight accepted abstracts for a speaking programme found Technical Depth's stated 50% revealed at 12.5%, and Audience Relevance's revealed at 87.5%.
The same two programmes prove it both ways. Kettlewell's 2025 entries led with Innovation and Technical Depth, the stated weights, and both were rejected. A year later, rebuilt to lead with Customer Impact and Audience Relevance instead, both entries won or were accepted. Ten logged submissions since show the second gain: hours spent fell from 8.0 on the first entry, which had no reusable block to draw on, to 1.0 on the tenth, as the reuse rate climbed from 0% to 86%.
Criteria MappingSix past winners' own award citations for one annual award, eight past accepted abstracts for one annual speaking programme.
| Workforce Analytics Innovation Award | Stated | Revealed | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation | 40% | 22% | -18 |
| Customer Impact | 35% | 67% | +32 |
| Scalability | 25% | 11% | -14 |
| DataOps Summit Call for Speakers | Stated | Revealed | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Depth | 50% | 12.5% | -37.5 |
| Audience Relevance | 50% | 87.5% | +37.5 |
Six of six winners led with a customer outcome. Only two of six named innovation at all.
Submission HistoryThe same two programmes, a year apart. Only the lead criterion changed.
| Submission | Opportunity | Led with | Reuse | Hours | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · 2025 | Workforce Innovation Award | Innovation, stated | 0% | 8.0 | Rejected |
| 5 · 2026 | Workforce Innovation Award | Customer Impact, revealed | 62.0% | 3.75 | Won |
| 2 · 2025 | DataOps Summit CFP | Technical Depth, stated | 27.1% | 6.0 | Rejected |
| 6 · 2026 | DataOps Summit CFP | Audience Relevance, revealed | 70.0% | 3.0 | Accepted |
| 10 · 2026 | Future of Work Summit CFP | Audience Relevance, revealed | 86.0% | 1.0 | Accepted |
Same company, same product, same judges' likely rubric. The only variable that changed between a rejection and a win is which criterion opens the entry.
Narrative BlocksMined only from a submission that already won, was accepted, or reached finalist standing, never written in the abstract.
| Block | Serves | Words | Reused in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Company Overview | General | 85 | 9 entries |
| Founder & Team Bio | General | 65 | 9 entries |
| Customer Impact Story | Customer Impact | 210 | 3 entries |
| Audience Relevance Takeaways | Audience Relevance | 175 | 3 entries |
| Differentiator vs. Category | Innovation | 115 | 4 entries |
Hours spent fell from 8.0 on the first entry, which had no block to draw on, to 1.0 on the tenth, once every general-purpose block already existed.
Six past winners' award citations, or eight past accepted abstracts, read for what they cite or lead with, normalized into a revealed weight next to the programme's own stated one.
Six blocks mined only from a submission that already won, was accepted, or reached finalist standing, each tagged to the criterion it actually serves.
Two full entries showing the rejected first attempt next to the second attempt that won, once the draft led with the revealed criterion instead of the stated one.
Every programme's cadence and next deadline, plus whether its criteria have been mapped yet, so nothing gets missed and nothing gets guessed at.
Every entry logged with new words, reused words, hours spent, and outcome, so a climbing reuse rate and falling hours is a number, not an impression.
Hand over entries you've submitted before, rejected or not, and the call-for-entries pages for whatever you're considering next.
River finds five to ten past winners' own citations or accepted abstracts per opportunity and counts what they actually lead with.
A submission that won, was accepted, or reached finalist standing gets split into reusable blocks, each tagged to the criterion it serves.
The opening paragraph follows whichever criterion the mapping found judges actually reward, then pulls the matching blocks before writing anything new.
Yes, with no signup and no card, and the download is the complete pack rather than a preview of it. Edit with AI installs it as a private workspace and reads your own past submissions instead of this worked example. More packs sit in the template library.
Two Word documents and three CSV sheets in one zip. The documents open in Word, Pages, and Google Docs, and the sheets open as real spreadsheets in Excel, Numbers, or Google Sheets, so the mapping and the submission log are usable data.
The rubric describes what a programme is willing to say about itself. Criteria Mapping reads what its own past winners actually cited or led with and computes the gap. On this pack's worked opportunities the gap ran as high as 37.5 points, enough to decide which criterion opens the entry.
Draft from the stated weights and flag the opportunity as unmapped rather than guessing at a revealed one. Once that first cycle produces winners or accepted entries, even three or four, run Criteria Mapping against them before the next submission goes out.
Only the general-purpose blocks, the company overview and the team bio, repeat everywhere. A block built from a specific customer result only gets pulled into an entry whose revealed weight actually calls for that criterion, and every entry still writes a new opening paragraph.
Yes. A win or an acceptance is real, dated news, and the same customer proof point that won the entry can lead a press release or a pitch to a reporter who covers the category.
It installs this pack as a private workspace and asks for past submissions and the opportunities you're targeting next. It reads whatever past winners or accepted entries are public, computes the revealed weight per opportunity, and drafts the next opening paragraph to it.
Written by
Co-founder & CEO, River
Chandler has spent the last six years working in AI, building tools for millions of users and Fortune 100 companies. In 2025, he co-founded River to build a new kind of operating system for AI agents.
Send past submissions and the opportunities you're targeting next. River reads past winners for the revealed weight and builds a block library from whatever already worked.
Edit with AI