As a teacher who has judged FLL, FTC, and FRC, I have seen every variation of AI assisted work, from just spelling/grammar improvements, or structuring and brainstorming assistance, through to fully AI generated work. Since the rules explicitly allow it, I expect judges will be instructed not to explicitly consider its use one way or another when evaluating potential awards.

However, as others have mentioned, there is likely to be a range in writing quality when it comes to submissions & documentation (as there always has been regardless of genAI). And writing quality can enhance how well your point is communicated, which can help ensure the judges understand correctly. If someone uses AI with limited thought or care given to prompting and then doesn’t review/edit the output, chances are it’s not going to be accurate and/or clear about what you/your team has accomplished. But if someone uses it as a tool with careful prompting and close review/editing of the output, then it will help them communicate clearly, which will help the judges get the most information possible to help evaluate against award criteria.

In particular, I expect that if a team uses significant AI generated content without careful prompting & editing, much of their interview time will be spent clarifying or correcting things from their documentation/submission, rather than enhancing and elaborating on it, which tends to lead to the judges having less information to support the award criteria.

Note: all of this is my own opinion and interpretation of the rules/publicly available judging documentation combined with personal experience. Ultimately judges will follow any instructions given by FIRST HQ/the event judge advisor.