Not blind, on purpose. Blind review levels the field when there are forty slots and four hundred talks. We have around 150 seats and intend to take most of the people we'd be glad to have. So reviewers read the whole application: who you are, what you've done, what you'd bring, and who might come because you're here.

Three reasons, every time. Each reviewer names the top three things you'd bring, from a fixed list in three groups. Give: deep experience, a strong offer, a great host, a position worth arguing, builds the format. Draw: a notable name, an interesting company or project, brings others. Perspective: a fresh perspective, an under-represented one (if you chose to share that with the panel), crosses disciplines, outside the usual bubble. Any one reason can carry a yes, a notable name included.

A verdict and a comment. Yes, yes if there's room, or not this year, plus any concerns (vendor pitch, availability, thin offers, same ten faces, employer cap, conduct) and a comment written as if for the meeting. Other reviewers' verdicts stay hidden until yours is saved.

Composition. The content team then looks at the room as a whole: no more than three per employer, a real share of first-timers, topics spread, vendor-neutral. Caps are written before reading starts.

What stays private. Reviewers never see the fee question or your access needs. The representation section is used in aggregate, and reaches reviewers only if you tick the box. One person outside the panel handles bursaries. Offers go out before declines; declines come with the reasons; the waitlist is told where it stands; a seat is claimed within fourteen days or passes on.

draft  This page is being written and will be complete before applications open.