> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.cantina.xyz/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Judging Processes

> How findings are evaluated, escalated, and scored

**How findings are evaluated, escalated, and scored across Cantina.**

Our judging system is designed to be transparent, consistent, and aligned with real-world risk - ensuring high-quality results for both researchers and clients.

## Scoring System

How competition points are calculated and prize pots are distributed.

Cantina competitions use a transparent, points-based scoring model to reward high-impact, high-quality submissions - encouraging depth, originality, and clarity.

### Prize Pot Distribution

All eligible participants who score points share in a public prize pot.

* **High severity finding**: 10 points
* **Medium severity finding**: 3 points
* **Low severity findings**: May be eligible for a separate prize pool, if specified.

### Duplicate Submission Scaling

When multiple researchers submit the same bug, each person's score is scaled down based on the total number of duplicates:

$\text{Points} = \frac{\text{Full Points}}{1 + 0.8 \times (n - 1)}$

Where `n` is the number of duplicate submissions.

* 2 duplicates: each receives **4.5 points** for a high severity finding
* 3 duplicates: each receives **2.7 points** for a high severity finding

This incentivizes originality - being the one to find the bug no one else saw results in a much larger reward.

### Submission Timing

Submissions are scored equally regardless of when they're submitted during the competition. However, early, well-written reports are encouraged to allow teams to provide feedback and begin implementing fixes.

### Withdrawing Findings

You can withdraw a submission at any time using the "withdraw finding" option in the finding menu.

### Low-Severity, Informational, and Gas Findings

Some competitions include a dedicated prize pool for these types of findings. These awards are based solely on **quality**, not quantity - and exceptional writeups in this category (or for high/medium findings) may be recognized here as well.

## Escalation Process

Appeal a judging decision with clarity and consequence.

Once the initial judging phase is complete, researchers have the opportunity to appeal a decision they believe was misjudged - by initiating an escalation.

### Who Can Escalate

* Only the **original submitter** of a finding can initiate an escalation.
* Escalations must include **additional context or justification** for why the severity should be reconsidered.

### Penalty for Invalid Escalations

* Invalid escalations will result in a **\$100 penalty**, deducted from any future competition earnings.
* This system is in place to prevent unnecessary or speculative appeals.

### Judging Authority

* All escalations are reviewed by Cantina.
* **Cantina's decision is final**.

### Private Comments

* You can add **private comments** to any finding - visible only to judges.
* These are useful both during initial judging and if you escalate.
* If commenting on others' findings, stay professional: keep your notes **objective and specific**.

## Judge Responsibilities

During the judging phase, judges are responsible for handling different operations for findings.

These are extended and not limited to managing thorough duplication of all raised issues, which helps in identifying and filtering out obvious low or invalid concerns.

They are tasked with evaluating issues based on established rules and may seek feedback from sponsors when necessary to make informed judgments. Furthermore, judges facilitate a system of escalation, allowing researchers to present additional information for reevaluation of their issues. In such scenarios, judges provide valuable feedback, incorporating the sponsor's perspective if needed.

Ultimately, while judges contribute significantly to the reassessment process, the final decision often resides with the Cantina internal team, ensuring that all judgments are well-considered and equitable.

### Key Responsibilities

* **Evaluate findings** based on established severity criteria
* **Handle duplication** by grouping related findings
* **Collaborate with sponsors** for clarification when needed
* **Process escalations** and provide feedback
* **Maintain consistency** across all submissions