A Record of Four Contests Entered in 2026 — Two Accepted, Two Rejected

Introduction

In the first half of 2026, I applied to four contests and grant programs using ReLow60 L-HE as my subject. The results were two accepted and two rejected.

Each application was, at its core, “a story about the ReLow60 keyboard,” yet what each program was actually asking was surprisingly different. One evaluated the polish of what I had built; another probed whether the project was viable as a business; another asked what questions I was genuinely pursuing; and another examined how I was collaborating with AI. I ended up re-explaining the same product four times in completely different terms.

The process was a significant learning experience, so I’m documenting it here — rejected applications included. The details of each contest are covered in individual articles.

Overview

Contest / ProgramOrganizerResult
TiB FAB Makers Challenge 2026Tokyo Innovation Base (Tokyo Metropolitan Government)Accepted
AI Utilization Promotion Grant Program for Learning and ResearchChiba Institute of TechnologyAccepted
DigiKey Make ONE Challenge 2026DigiKeyRejected (first round)
QWS ChallengeSHIBUYA QWSRejected

Individual Articles


Retrospective Across All Four Applications

Even with the same product, what each program asked was entirely different

This is the single strongest impression that came out of doing all four.

ContestWhat was being asked
DigiKeyWhat I built and how I built it
QWSWhat questions I was pursuing
TiBHow I planned to sell it and sustain it as a business
AI Utilization GrantHow I was collaborating with AI

I had the same ReLow60 in hand every time, yet I had to reframe my project from a completely different angle for each application. The measurement data I wrote up for DigiKey would have landed flat at QWS, and the philosophy I articulated for QWS would have gotten a “so what did you actually build?” at DigiKey.

A single project can be explained in multiple ways — I hadn’t truly felt that until I went through this process.

The rejected applications supported the accepted ones

The writing I did for the two rejected applications was not wasted.

The question I articulated for QWS — “Is the form of that tool truly ‘optimal’?” — appeared almost verbatim at the opening of my TiB presentation, and I also used it to explain my design philosophy during the AI grant dialogue. When the dialogue ended with “If you were to start over, what would you change?”, my answer was “I’d lead with the QWS application text and my design philosophy.”

The ProtoPedia page I wrote for DigiKey has continued to serve as a reference ever since.

The ideas I put into words for rejected applications ended up supporting the accepted ones. Since QWS and DigiKey came first and TiB and the AI grant came second, the first two effectively served as drafts for the latter two.

My own weaknesses became visible

What the AI grant dialogue exposed most sharply was that I’m good at breaking work into fine-grained tasks, but poor at placing those tasks realistically within a timeline and resource constraints. I had failed to do the basic back-calculation that, given PCB manufacturing lead times, there would be no room for a second order.

The TiB application sheet also required me to list four known weaknesses and disadvantages of my project at this stage. Working through that — covering mass production, quality assurance, market fit, and funding — made what I’m lacking quite clear. An application is written to get accepted, but it is simultaneously a forced audit of where you currently stand.

Looking Ahead

I’m now working on an improved version and a new product for an event to be held in Tokyo in September. The TiB program runs through 2027 and the AI utilization grant through May 2027, so I plan to write up the outcomes of both in future articles.