Send us an idea
before it’s ready.
The hardest part of doing original work as a student is finding someone serious to read your draft. Early-Stage Feedback is GQC’s free critique desk, independent of 2026 judging. 2026 applications closed 22 May. Remaining published stages: London, New York, Global Final. Write feedback@gqc.org with a one-page brief; a later competition cycle stays unpublished until posted.
The point of getting feedback early.
Most of the work in a GQC entry is decided before anyone presses submit: the choice of question, the framing of the user, the methods used. By the time a project reaches a judging panel, those decisions are usually too cemented to change. Early-Stage Feedback exists to apply pressure where it’s still useful.
You can use the service without ever entering GQC. You don’t have to be on a team yet. Some of the strongest cohorts we’ve seen began as a single student who sent in a draft brief in October and built a team off the back of the critique.
Three steps.
One page is plenty. Tell us the problem you’re thinking about, who it affects, and what you’ve tried so far. A scrappy Google Doc is better than a polished PDF.
One subject-matter expert close to the problem area, one generalist who can challenge framing. They read independently — no consensus required.
Each runs roughly 400–600 words. We aim for fourteen days. You decide what to do with the advice — we don’t expect or require a reply, and submitting doesn’t commit you to entering GQC.
Send a draft.
This is an independent written-critique desk. It is not a 2026 entry form and not a later-cycle application.
The 2026 application window closed 22 May. Remaining published stages: London, New York, Global Final. Write feedback@gqc.org with a one-page brief: the problem, who is affected, and what you have tried. A scrappy document link is enough. A later competition cycle stays unpublished until posted.
A one-page brief, a two-page reply, no score.
Upload a single page: problem, who is affected, what you have already tried, what you think you will build. You will receive a two-page critique mapped loosely to the rubric — clarity, evidence gaps, feasibility, ethics flags — signed by one reviewer. There is no score. The reviewer will not sit on your city jury. Using the service does not raise or lower shortlisting odds; not using it does not count against you.
What good looks like in the one-pager is the same as in the application brief, only shorter. Name a place. Do not attach a deck. Do not ask us to “validate the startup.” Ask us where the argument is thin. The open window was 2 March–22 May. After that deadline the desk closes; the Learning Experience then takes over for those who are shortlisted. There is no published response-time promise.
This is not a pre-interview, not a scholarship committee, and not legal advice. If the page raises a safeguarding or research-ethics issue, we will say so and point you to the relevant rule rather than workshop the product.