Judging and Confidentiality Policy

Version 1.0

Introduction

This Judging and Confidentiality Policy ("Policy") explains how The Meridian Awards Ltd ("Meridian", "we", "our" or "us") manages the evaluation of Submissions entered into the Awards.

The Awards exist to recognise exceptional artistic work through thoughtful, human evaluation. Meridian was founded in response to an increasingly metrics-driven music culture in which visibility, virality, commercial reach and algorithmic performance can overshadow artistic depth, emotional resonance, originality and creative craft.

The Meridian judging process is designed around a simple principle:

music should be evaluated on artistic merit.

This Policy sets out Meridian's approach to judging, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, scoring, procedural review, Judge conduct and the protection of Submissions.

This Policy forms part of the Awards Entry Terms and Conditions and should be read alongside Meridian's other published policies.

1. Definitions

For the purposes of this Policy:

Awards means The Meridian Awards programme, including all award categories, competitions, initiatives, ceremonies and associated activities organised by Meridian.

Category Rules means any published eligibility requirements, judging criteria or submission requirements that apply specifically to an individual Award category.

Eligibility Rules means Meridian's published eligibility requirements applicable to the relevant Awards cycle.

Entrant means any individual or organisation that submits, or intends to submit, a Submission to the Awards.

Judge means an individual authorised by Meridian to assess eligible Submissions.

Jury Chair means the individual appointed by Meridian to oversee the procedural integrity and administration of the judging process for the relevant Awards cycle.

Meridian, we, our or us means The Meridian Awards Ltd, a company incorporated in England and Wales under company number 17298148.

Personal Data means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, as defined by applicable data protection legislation, including the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).

Submission means any information, recording, musical work, audiovisual work, image, artwork, photograph, biography, lyric, document, metadata, declaration or other material submitted to Meridian in connection with the Awards.

Website means www.themeridianawards.com, together with any associated subdomains, web pages, online portals, judging platforms and digital services owned or operated by Meridian.

2. Principles of Evaluation

The Meridian judging process is built upon the following principles:

  • human-led assessment; 
  • artistic merit; 
  • independence;  
  • fairness;  
  • category-specific evaluation; 
  • confidentiality;  
  • transparency;  
  • respect for Entrants and their work. 

Submissions are evaluated using structured, category-specific criteria frameworks designed to prioritise:

  • artistic integrity; 
  • emotional communication; 
  • originality;  
  • craftsmanship;  
  • cultural significance; 
  • conceptual depth; 
  • artistic execution. 

Meridian does not use the following as determining factors in the judging process:

  • public voting; 
  • popularity metrics; 
  • chart performance; 
  • social media following; 
  • streaming statistics; 
  • industry influence; 
  • commercial visibility; 
  • algorithmic ranking. 

Recognition is determined through structured human evaluation alone.

3. Human-Led Assessment

All eligible Submissions are assessed by human Judges using structured category-specific scoring systems.

Meridian does not use algorithmic ranking, automated evaluation systems or popularity-based weighting within its judging process.

Judges are expected to engage thoughtfully and critically with the work itself, applying the relevant Category Rules and scoring criteria.

The purpose of the judging process is not to identify the most visible, commercially successful or algorithmically favoured work, but to recognise artistic achievement based on human evaluation.

4. Independent Evaluation

Judges assess Submissions independently in order to minimise:

  • groupthink;  
  • consensus bias; 
  • peer influence; 
  • popularity influence; 
  • reputation influence; 
  • external pressure. 

Scores are submitted individually and remain isolated throughout the primary assessment process.

Discussion between Judges may occur only where necessary for procedural resolution, including tie situations, eligibility questions, conflict management or other matters requiring oversight by Meridian or the Jury Chair.

Judges must not attempt to influence the scores or assessments of other Judges outside any process expressly authorised by Meridian.

5. Blind Judging and Contextual Information

Meridian anonymises Submissions wherever reasonably possible during evaluation.

Where practical, Judges are not provided with:

  • artist popularity metrics; 
  • follower counts; 
  • streaming statistics; 
  • chart performance; 
  • label affiliation; 
  • management affiliation; 
  • commercial performance data. 

Meridian believes that artistic work should be evaluated independently from status, visibility or commercial influence.

However, Meridian may provide Judges with artist names, biographies, contextual statements, cultural context, production notes, visual materials or other information where such information is relevant to the category, the nature of the Submission or the published judging criteria.

Meridian determines what information Judges receive based on the requirements of each category and the need to conduct fair and meaningful evaluation.

6. Category-Specific Evaluation

Each Award category operates under its own dedicated Category Rules and criteria framework.

Submissions are evaluated against the artistic goals, technical requirements and philosophical intent of the category entered.

Meridian does not apply a single universal commercial standard across all categories.

Full judging criteria for categories will be made publicly available where reasonably practicable.

Where a Submission is entered into an inappropriate category, Meridian may take action in accordance with the Awards Entry Terms and Conditions.

7. Artistic Intent and Contextual Statements

Where relevant, Entrants may provide optional contextual statements outlining:

  • artistic intent; 
  • conceptual framing; 
  • cultural context; 
  • production philosophy; 
  • creative methodology; 
  • relevant background to the Submission. 

These statements exist to provide artistic context.

They do not override the evaluation of the work itself, nor do they guarantee higher scores, finalist status or receipt of an Award.

Judges may consider contextual statements where relevant to the applicable Category Rules and judging criteria.

8. Jury Structure

The Meridian jury consists of a deliberately selected panel of musically experienced professionals drawn from a range of artistic, technical, cultural and industry backgrounds.

The jury may include:

  • artists;  
  • producers;  
  • composers;  
  • engineers;  
  • journalists;  
  • immersive audio specialists; 
  • cultural specialists; 
  • performance specialists; 
  • industry professionals with relevant expertise. 

The size and composition of the jury may expand or contract between Awards cycles where deemed appropriate by Meridian.

Meridian seeks to maintain a jury body representing a range of artistic disciplines, musical perspectives, cultural viewpoints, creative backgrounds and listening experiences.

This is intended to strengthen fairness, perspective and breadth of artistic understanding within the evaluation process.

9. Jury Chair

Meridian may appoint a Jury Chair for the relevant Awards cycle.

The Jury Chair may be responsible for:

  • maintaining procedural integrity; 
  • overseeing scoring administration; 
  • resolving procedural questions; 
  • overseeing tie resolution where necessary; 
  • ensuring consistency across the evaluation process; 
  • supporting conflict management; 
  • helping preserve fairness and independence in judging. 

The Jury Chair may participate within the judging process as an active voting member.

Where the Jury Chair participates as a voting member, their scores are treated in accordance with the same rules that apply to other Judges, subject to any tie-resolution provisions set out in this Policy or the applicable Category Rules.

10. Specialist Judges

Certain categories may include specialist Judges with relevant expertise.

Specialist areas may include:

  • immersive audio; 
  • cultural and heritage-based work; 
  • production and sonic craft; 
  • visual integration; 
  • performance;  
  • songwriting;  
  • genre-specific or discipline-specific expertise. 

Specialist Judges hold equal scoring weight alongside other Judges, unless expressly stated otherwise in the applicable Category Rules.

Where a tie occurs within a specialist category, the assessment of a specialist Judge may act as the decisive determining vote where appropriate.

11. Public Disclosure of Jury Members

Meridian does not publicly disclose active judging panels during live assessment periods.

This is intended to preserve independence, impartiality and the integrity of the judging process.

Jury Members may be publicly disclosed after the completion of the relevant Awards cycle.

Meridian may decide the timing, format and extent of such disclosure.

Nothing in this Policy requires Meridian to disclose individual scorecards, internal deliberations, private notes, procedural discussions or confidential judging materials.

12. Eligibility Screening

All Submissions may undergo an initial administrative screening prior to formal judging.

This screening process exists to assess:

  • category eligibility; 
  • submission completeness; 
  • technical compliance; 
  • adherence to Meridian policies; 
  • AI compliance; 
  • removal of clearly ineligible or significantly below-standard Submissions. 

Screening may be conducted by Meridian representatives, the Jury Chair, designated administrative reviewers or members of the jury.

The screening stage is not the final judging process and does not determine category winners.

Meridian may:

  • reject ineligible Submissions; 
  • request technical corrections; 
  • request further information; 
  • reassign entries to more appropriate categories where beneficial to the Entrant; 
  • remove Submissions that do not comply with the applicable Terms, Eligibility Rules or Category Rules. 

Category reassignment may occur without prior approval where Meridian believes another category more accurately reflects the artistic nature of the work submitted.

13. Assessment Methodology

Eligible Submissions are assessed using structured scoring matrices specific to each category.

Judges assign scores in accordance with the scoring ranges, criteria and descriptors defined by the applicable Category Rules.

Meridian may require:

  • whole-number scores; 
  • category-specific scoring bands; 
  • written internal notes; 
  • confirmation of completion; 
  • procedural declarations; 
  • conflict confirmations. 

Each category contains criteria and scoring descriptors intended to support consistency, transparency and analytical evaluation.

Judges may revisit Submissions and revise scores throughout the active judging window.

Scores remain editable until the official scoring deadline has passed.

Once scores are locked, they become final unless procedural review is required.

14. Equal Vote Weighting

Unless expressly stated otherwise in the applicable Category Rules, all Judges hold equal scoring weight throughout the assessment process.

No Judge receives preferential weighting outside procedural tie-resolution circumstances defined in this Policy, the applicable Category Rules or any published judging procedure.

Where a specialist Judge is used as part of a tie-resolution process, that use must be connected to the relevant category expertise and procedural requirements.

15. Professional Listening Standards

Judges are expected to assess Submissions using professional-quality monitoring systems and appropriate listening environments wherever reasonably possible.

Judges should take reasonable care to evaluate Submissions in conditions that allow meaningful assessment of artistic, technical and sonic detail.

Where a category involves immersive audio, Dolby Atmos or another specialist audio format, Submissions should be evaluated within appropriate compatible monitoring environments wherever reasonably possible.

Meridian recognises that exact listening environments may vary between Judges, but expects all Judges to take their evaluation responsibilities seriously and to avoid casual, distracted or unsuitable listening conditions.

16. Finalist and Winner Selection

Unless otherwise stated in the applicable Category Rules, each category will normally recognise:

  • five finalists; 
  • one winner. 

Finalists are determined by the highest aggregate score totals within their category, subject to eligibility, verification, procedural review and any applicable tie-resolution process.

The number of finalists may vary where expressly permitted by the relevant Category Rules or where Meridian reasonably determines that variation is necessary for the integrity or administration of the Awards.

Meridian reserves the right to withhold a category Award where the jury collectively determines that no Submission meaningfully meets the artistic standard required for recognition.

Meridian's intention remains to recognise exceptional artistic achievement wherever it is found.

17. The Meridian Distinction

The Meridian Distinction is Meridian's highest artistic honour.

Due to its nature, the number of finalists or recognised works within The Meridian Distinction may vary between Awards cycles at the discretion of Meridian, the Jury Chair or the appointed jury, as appropriate.

Meridian may recognise a variable number of finalists within this category where deemed artistically appropriate.

The Meridian Distinction is intended to represent exceptional artistic recognition beyond ordinary category performance.

18. Conflicts of Interest

Judges are required to disclose any known, suspected or potential conflict of interest relating to a Submission, Entrant, category or Awards process.

Conflicts may include:

  • prior work with an Entrant; 
  • personal friendship or family relationship; 
  • business relationship; 
  • financial interest; 
  • label, management, publishing or PR connection; 
  • direct involvement in the Submission; 
  • employment, consultancy or advisory relationship; 
  • public dispute; 
  • personal bias; 
  • any other relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect impartiality. 

Disclosure of a conflict does not automatically prevent participation in the judging process.

Meridian may determine the appropriate response depending on the nature and seriousness of the conflict.

This may include:

  • recording the conflict without further action; 
  • restricting the Judge from assessing a particular Submission; 
  • recusing the Judge from a category; 
  • reviewing the Judge's scores; 
  • removing the Judge from part or all of the judging process. 

Judges must notify Meridian promptly if a conflict becomes apparent during the judging process.

19. Scoring Irregularities and Procedural Review

Meridian may review scoring irregularities where reasonably necessary to protect fairness and consistency.

This may include unusually high or low scores when compared with the scoring pattern of other Judges, unexplained scoring anomalies, scoring affected by a declared or undeclared conflict, or other circumstances suggesting procedural concern.

Where appropriate, Meridian may:

  • request clarification from a Judge; 
  • review the relevant score; 
  • require reconsideration; 
  • adjust or remove a score; 
  • appoint an additional Judge; 
  • refer the matter to the Jury Chair; 
  • take any other reasonable procedural step. 

This process exists solely to protect fairness, consistency and the integrity of the evaluation process.

It does not permit artistic appeals based only on disagreement with a Judge's opinion.

20. Tie Resolution

Tie resolution procedures apply where a tie directly affects the determination of a category winner, finalist position or other material Awards outcome.

Where applicable:

  • specialist Judges may provide the deciding assessment within specialist categories; 
  • jury discussion may be initiated for procedural resolution; 
  • additional review may be requested; 
  • the Jury Chair may retain final authority regarding tie outcomes; 
  • Meridian may award shared winners where such an outcome is artistically justified. 

Tie resolution must be conducted in a manner consistent with the integrity, fairness and published procedures of the Awards.

21. Confidentiality Obligations

Judges must treat all Submissions, judging materials, scores, internal communications and non-public Awards information as confidential.

Judges must not, unless expressly authorised by Meridian:

  • share Submissions with any third party; 
  • copy, download, retain or redistribute Submissions; 
  • disclose scores; 
  • disclose judging discussions; 
  • disclose internal deliberations; 
  • disclose confidential procedural information; 
  • discuss active entries publicly; 
  • identify non-public Entrants or Submissions; 
  • use Submissions for personal, professional or commercial benefit; 
  • contact Entrants directly because of privileged judging access; 
  • upload Submission materials or Entrant information into AI tools. 

These obligations apply during the Awards cycle and continue indefinitely after judging has ended.

Confidentiality is essential to protecting Entrants, Judges, Meridian and the integrity of the Awards.

22. Prohibited Use of Submissions by Judges

Judges must not use privileged access to Submissions for any unauthorised personal, professional or commercial purpose.

Judges must not, without Meridian's approval and the Entrant's separate consent where required:

  • sign, manage or represent an Entrant based on privileged access; 
  • pitch an Entrant or Submission to third parties; 
  • playlist, promote or commercially exploit a Submission before public announcement; 
  • sample, remix, copy or adapt any Submission; 
  • use a Submission as inspiration for their own work in a manner that infringes rights or breaches confidentiality; 
  • solicit collaboration with an Entrant during the Awards cycle; 
  • contact an Entrant about their Submission during the Awards cycle; 
  • disclose Submission information to labels, publishers, managers, agents, sponsors, platforms or other third parties. 

Nothing in this Policy prevents a Judge from engaging with an Entrant or their work where that relationship exists independently of the Awards process and does not involve misuse of confidential information or privileged access.

23. AI and Judging Materials

Judges must not upload, submit, process, analyse, summarise, transcribe, transform or otherwise use any Submission, scoring material, Entrant information, confidential communication or judging material with any artificial intelligence, machine learning or generative AI tool unless expressly authorised in writing by Meridian.

This prohibition applies to:

  • audio recordings; 
  • lyrics;  
  • artwork;  
  • images;  
  • videos;  
  • biographies;  
  • metadata;  
  • scoring notes; 
  • comments;  
  • internal documents; 
  • Entrant information; 
  • any other non-public Awards material. 

Judges must not use Submissions or judging materials for AI training, model development, prompt generation, dataset creation, synthetic output, automated scoring or AI-assisted evaluation.

All judging must remain human-led.

24. Public Statements by Judges

Judges must not make public statements about active Submissions, ongoing judging, internal scores, deliberations, conflicts, disagreements or procedural matters unless authorised by Meridian.

After public announcements have been made, Judges may comment on shortlisted or winning works only in general, appropriate and public-facing terms.

Judges must not disclose:

  • confidential scores; 
  • internal rankings; 
  • deliberations;  
  • private comments; 
  • non-public judging materials; 
  • procedural disagreements; 
  • confidential Entrant information; 
  • information about unsuccessful Submissions. 

Judges must not make public statements that could reasonably undermine the integrity, independence or confidentiality of the Awards.

25. Scores, Feedback and Entrant Requests

Meridian is committed to maintaining transparent evaluation practices.

As part of this commitment:

  • category criteria may be made publicly available; 
  • scoring structures may be publicly explained; 
  • judging methodology may be publicly documented; 
  • jury members may be disclosed following each Awards cycle; 
  • Entrants may request access to their final scores. 

Meridian does not guarantee written feedback, Judge commentary, detailed score breakdowns, internal notes or individual explanations of scoring decisions.

Judge notes, internal comments, deliberations and procedural communications remain confidential.

Meridian may determine the timing, format and scope of score access for each Awards cycle.

26. Procedural Reviews

Judging decisions are final except where a procedural review is permitted under the Awards Entry Terms and Conditions.

Meridian does not permit appeals based upon:

  • artistic disagreement; 
  • scoring dissatisfaction; 
  • category outcomes; 
  • finalist selection decisions; 
  • judging methodology; 
  • differences of professional opinion. 

An Entrant may request a procedural review only where they reasonably believe that:

  • an administrative error has occurred; 
  • a technical processing error has affected their Submission; 
  • the Eligibility Rules or Category Rules have been incorrectly applied. 

A request for procedural review must:

  • be submitted in writing; 
  • clearly identify the alleged error; 
  • be received within the timeframe published by Meridian following the announcement of the relevant results. 

Submission of a procedural review request does not guarantee that a review will be undertaken.

Meridian reserves the right to determine whether a request discloses sufficient grounds for investigation.

27. Judge Conduct and Removal

Judges are expected to act with integrity, independence, professionalism and respect.

Meridian may remove or replace a Judge where it reasonably considers this necessary to protect the Awards, including where a Judge:

  • breaches confidentiality; 
  • fails to disclose a conflict of interest; 
  • demonstrates bias; 
  • engages in misconduct; 
  • fails to complete judging responsibilities; 
  • misuses Submissions; 
  • breaches AI or data protection requirements; 
  • attempts to influence other Judges improperly; 
  • acts in a manner damaging to Meridian or the Awards; 
  • otherwise fails to comply with this Policy or any applicable Meridian requirements. 

Where necessary, Meridian may review, adjust, discard or replace scores submitted by a removed Judge.

Meridian may appoint replacement Judges where appropriate.

28. Data Protection

Meridian processes Personal Data in accordance with its Privacy Policy.

Judges may receive limited Personal Data where reasonably necessary to assess Submissions, verify eligibility, understand artistic context or administer the Awards.

Judges must handle Personal Data confidentially and only for authorised Awards-related purposes.

Judges must not retain, copy, disclose, export or otherwise misuse Personal Data obtained through the judging process.

Further information regarding Meridian's processing of Personal Data is available in the Privacy Policy.

29. Relationship with Other Meridian Documents

This Policy should be read together with Meridian's:

  • Awards Entry Terms and Conditions; 
  • Submission Licence Agreement; 
  • AI Submission Policy; 
  • Privacy Policy; 
  • Website Terms and Conditions; 
  • Cookie Policy. 

The Awards Entry Terms and Conditions govern participation in the Awards generally.

This Policy governs judging, confidentiality, conflicts, scoring and related procedural matters.

The Submission Licence Agreement governs the rights granted to Meridian in relation to Submissions.

The AI Submission Policy governs the use and disclosure of artificial intelligence or AI-assisted technologies in Submissions.

The Privacy Policy governs the processing of Personal Data.

30. Changes to This Policy

Meridian may update this Policy from time to time to reflect changes in legislation, technology, operational requirements, judging methodology or the continued development of the Awards.

The most recent version will always be published on the Website, together with its version number and effective date.

Where reasonably practicable, material changes affecting current Entrants or Judges will be published on the Website or otherwise communicated by Meridian.

Meridian will not normally apply material changes retrospectively to completed Submissions unless required by law or where necessary to protect the integrity, fairness or security of the Awards.

31. Governing Law and Jurisdiction

This Policy shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of England and Wales.

Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Policy shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

If you have any questions regarding this Judging and Confidentiality Policy, please contact:

The Meridian Awards Ltd
71 to 75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, WC2H 9JQ, United Kingdom

Email: support@themeridianawards.com 

Closing Statement

The Meridian jury exists to ensure fair, transparent and meaningful artistic assessment across all categories and Submissions.

Meridian believes music deserves thoughtful evaluation grounded in emotional impact, artistic integrity, originality, craftsmanship and human connection.

The purpose of the judging process is not simply to determine winners. It is to uphold the value of artistic recognition itself.

At its core, the Awards exist to honour music that demands attention through exceptional human artistic expression, evaluated with seriousness, independence, transparency and respect.

Document Information

Document: Judging and Confidentiality Policy

Version: 1.0

Effective Date: 1 July 2026

Last Updated: 1 July 2026

Document Owner: The Meridian Awards Ltd