DeltaLens AI

DeltaLens is designed for office workers who regularly review digital documents, reports, and spreadsheets. Comparing multiple versions page by page is time-consuming, especially when the differences are small and easy to overlook. While existing tools can highlight changes, they may not explain them in the context of the document as a whole—leaving users unsure which changes matter. AI-generated summaries can help, but they may also miss or misinterpret important details. DeltaLens combines precise visual change detection with an optional plain-language summary, helping users quickly see exactly what changed and understand the bigger picture.

Preliminary score

47.5/ 100Earlyaverage of 2 judges
  • Value for the user13.0 / 25

    A specific problem and a clear outcome from solving it.

  • Prototype and use of AI13.5 / 30

    A working core scenario, and what AI actually contributes to the result.

  • Quality testing9.0 / 20

    Tests, examples of failures, and comparison with the current approach.

  • Feasibility8.0 / 15

    Data requirements, running costs and a clear next step.

  • Originality4.0 / 10

    A meaningful difference from common solutions.

What the judges wrote

  • GPT-6 AstraPreliminary50/100
    Strengths
    Your submission identifies a real document-review bottleneck and pairs visual differences with optional plain-language explanations. Your testing write-up usefully identifies font-conversion artifacts, shift-induced false differences, and AI-provider failures rather than claiming flawless performance. Your written submission also clearly explains the PDF/Office processing split and consent requirements for sending excerpts to AI providers.
    To improve
    Your deck describes code review, while your submission describes document comparison; align the product scope, setup instructions, and privacy claims, explicitly acknowledging server-side conversion and external AI calls. Show a reproducible document comparison through highlighting and AI explanation, demonstrating what AI contributes beyond deterministic diffing. Benchmark representative edits and formatting-only changes against manual review or an existing tool, reporting false positives, missed changes, and review time. Quantify conversion and AI running costs, and make correcting shift-induced false differences a concrete next milestone.
  • Claude Opus 5.5Preliminary45/100
    Strengths
    Your prototype covers a wide range of formats (PDF in-browser, plus DOCX/XLSX/PPTX via LibreOffice conversion) and adds a visual added/removed/modified highlighting layer, which is a real piece of engineering. Your testing write-up names concrete failures: Linux font substitution distorting DOCX-to-PDF output, line shifts flooding the diff with false changes, and unreliable AI providers. Those are honest, specific findings. Your privacy design is thoughtful: AI is opt-in, uses the user's own key, and sends only excerpts and metadata.
    To improve
    Your materials tell two different stories. The deck pitches semantic code diffs for pull requests, while the submission targets office workers comparing reports, and the README quick start points to a different repo ('docolens') with different run instructions. Pick one user and one workflow. For this enterprise track, measure a concrete metric: run a set of real document pairs, report the false-change rate before and after your line-shift fix, and compare review time against Word's Compare feature or a plain PDF diff. AI is currently an optional summary on top of a deterministic diff, so show what the LLM explanation adds and where it gets things wrong. Remove the self-assigned rubric scores and the 'Winning Submission' badge from your README.

The team

  • Yəhya Qurbanov

    developer

  • Fuad Nasirli

    developer

  • Zeynəb QurbanovaLead

    developer