[Tristan Lall]

You've correctly pointed out a loophole in the current rules, and one into which I looked quite deeply, knowing the Triplets were coming to Waterloo. Parts from one team, given to another, aren't covered by the limitations on part fabrication—<R29> (the 25# rule) only deals with parts "to be used to repair and/or upgrade their robot at the competition site"; parts to be used on other robots aren't included. (Note that references in this rule to "the" robot refer to that team's robot—otherwise it doesn't make much sense, in context.)

So, this means that if I fabricate a device (wholly separate from my robot), and give (not sell) it to another team, at the competition site, there's no rule that forbids it, and furthermore, there's plenty of precedent that would seem to permit it. Basically, the rules assume that a team will perform all work on its own robot, and don't cover the case where another entity acted on their behalf, but without their prior knowledge! (And, in the case of the Triplets and other clones, as long as they have plausible deniability, it's essentially impossible for an inspector to determine that there was prior knowledge or intent—to say nothing of the language in the rules which leaves a grey area surrounding "their" robot(s). It's easy to speculate that they're smart enough to take advantage of this, but without proof of actual violations, the ruling has to be in their favour.)

What we ought to see is some statement of limitation on the ability of teams (or other entities) acting on behalf of another team to fabricate parts outside of the regular rules, and furthermore, we could use a ruling on whether or not the intended use of the part (i.e. on whose robot it will reside) has any bearing on its legality.