Oral AdjudicationOA

An oral adjudication (OA) is the short explanation a judge gives after the debate to clarify the decision and help teams understand why one side won.

• Purpose: It highlights the central areas of the clash, explains how the panel weighed those issues, and why the winning team prevailed on balance. It is not a point-by-point summary or a space to re-argue the debate.
• Who delivers it (WSDC guidance): The Chair almost always gives the OA, unless they are in the minority, feel a panelist can explain the majority decision better, and the panelist agrees.
• Structure (WSDC guidance): Prioritise narrative clarity over comprehensiveness (max 8 minutes). Start with the verdict, introduce issues one by one, name initial contributions, explain how the issue evolved, and conclude each issue.
• AP (UADC): all judges, including Trainees, explain their own decision. Each OA lasts at most 7–10 minutes under the handbook's guidance. Judges awaiting their turn must not hear earlier OAs. The default order is Trainees, Panelists, then Chair; in a split, dissenting judges speak after the split is announced.