Hi @meganomly & @Ajoel,

Hope you're doing well. I wanted to ask about something that's been on my mind lately regarding the code review process.

I've been receiving emails about code reviews for different challenges, and I often find myself struggling to decide between two things: achieving a high private leaderboard score or creating a solution that would actually make an impact in the real world.

Here's what I mean - sometimes I find a solution that scores really well on the leaderboard, but it's so resource-intensive that putting it into production would be extremely expensive. Then I'll see another solution for the same challenge that's maybe 3x or 5x less computationally expensive and could easily be deployed in production at much cheaper costs, but it doesn't score as high.

I understand you usually request code from the top 10 scorers. I've read through the documentation links you've shared, and most of it talks about code explainability and reproducibility - which honestly, in 90% of cases, is never a problem for me. But what I'm not clear on is how you judge the actual value and impact a solution would have in solving the real end goal. We can all agree that leaderboard scores don't always equal real-life impact or what would actually work best for the end goal.

So my questions are:

• How do you find the balance between leaderboard performance and practical impact?
• What do you reward more, or is it 50/50?
• Should I be fully focusing on the leaderboard, finding a balance between the two, or fully focusing on impact?
• At the end of the day, is it the client's impact that matters most?

Answering this would really help me understand how to approach the continuing and upcoming competitions - whether to chase the leaderboard, aim for practical solutions, or find somewhere in between. I might have little experience compared to others, but I'm really seeking to grow and make impact in any way possible.