Now that there is data extracted and imported into a fully designed database, it’s time to actually do some analysis and create some visualizations!
I may continue adding more visualizations on my Tableau profile before I get the chance to give a full explanation and embed them here. Go to the link below for the latest and greatest in WGI 2026 analysis!
<aside> ⚠️
Quick disclaimer!
The use of the word “round” may have multiple meanings when explaining some of the below information. It could refer to the main round of competition (e.g. Prelims, Semifinals, Finals). Or, when there are too many groups in one class, the competition is split up into “rounds” (e.g. Round 1, Round 2, etc.), also called blocks.
</aside>
Starting simple, I wanted to put together all of the scores from the Championships Week in one place. While all of these scores are already posted publicly throughout the week, the formula for determining who advances and is eliminated is done by combining the scores from multiple blocks (”rounds”).
For example, Independent Open had 4 blocks of groups compete in Prelims (Rounds 1-4). When determining who advances to Semifinals, the scores from Round 1 and Round 2 were combined, and the top 12 advanced. Rinse and repeat for Round 3 and Round 4.
While reviewing the publicly posted scores at a glance, going back and forth between the multiple rounds can get tricky; Trying to compare the scores, keeping a count in your head of the groups advancing, forgetting what that one unit’s score was from the other round, you get the idea… So, this easy visual combines everything for you, along with some handy color coding. (Including a cheesy little gold, silver, and bronze for finals!)
I’ve done a lot of explaining about the single vs. double panel events throughout this project writeup. But, the analysis and visual I have been most eager to build was comparing how the judges of a double panel event compared in their rankings and scores. Fans of the activity for many years have reviewed recaps and took note of two judges in the same caption giving vastly different scores and assessments of the units. I felt the best way to display all of this is a heat map of the rankings.
This did help to point out a few surprising discrepancies. Probably most notably in Scholastic Open Prelims, Round 1, the Effect Visual judges seemed to have very different opinions on the units in competition. At a glance, it is immediately evident that there is not a relatively even gradient between the two judges, as you can see with some other captions in the visual below. Rather it is quite the random collage of colors between the two. Looking into some of the actual numbers is also quite revealing.
Sorting by the ranking of Judge 1’s total ranking, you can see how different the two rankings were. The unit Judge 1 ranked first in both sub-captions, Judge 2 ranked 12th (out of 13), which then based on the actual numerical score averaging out with other sub-captions, brought Judge 2’s total to 13th, last place! So, of two judges in the same caption, one scored a unit first, and the other scored that same unit last. Quite the difference!
Original sort, overall subtotal.
Sorted by Judge 1 total ranking.
Luckily, the scores from both judges are average, somewhat cancelling out the extreme discrepancies. However, as brought to life below, there are many examples of disagreements when using the double panel system.