These are just rumors, but let's look at two case studies that seem very logical to how judging works out:
Case A:
Bluabot and Redabot have the most magificent and simple launcher you've ever seen. Both teams display and demonstrate this to the judges. Redabot also has a stupendous business plan for team sustainability that no other team at the regional can match. Hence, in the judges room, most judges are able to justify giving bluabot a technical award since redabot obviously deserves the entreprenuership award.
Case B:
Redabot and Bluabot are rivals at it again at a different regional. Redabot brings back their business plan and launcher but bluabot has trouble repairing theirs for demonstration to the judges. In the judges eyes, no team can touch redabot for entrepreneurship and now it also appears they clearly have the superior launcher. Since no other team compares to redabot at the regional for entrepreneurship and for innovation, redabot receives both awards.
Also, from what I've heard, judging goes a bit differently at different events. I've seen judges who are interested in only a certain aspect of the team, and I've seen judges who are interested in every aspect of a team. I've seen little "dots" indicating a team has already been judged on an aspect of a team (hence no other judge stops by for that aspect) and I've seen a team swarmed by judges throughout the day because they're all interested in seeing the team from every angle. Both scenarios have happened to us in the last 3 years at 5 different competition locations -- VCU, Vegas, Palmetto, Philly, and then the championships. Usually the awards we've won have been secondary to the team doing what we do normally, which is to try to be competitive while projecting a professional image and conveying our core team values. For teams that win multiple awards, we applaud them twice as much
