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
- 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