# data[].attributes.headline
AWARD for BEST OVERALL STORY & OUTSTANDING STORYTELLING - The visitor by Viktoria Chaykova, 12g

# data[].attributes.subject
AWARD for BEST OVERALL STORY & OUTSTANDING STORYTELLING - The visitor by Viktoria Chaykova, 12g

# data[].attributes.body
The Visitor

Overall judgement

This is a very strong piece of student writing and a serious prize-winner contender. It shows control, restraint, and confidence — three things that matter a lot at Year 12.

Strengths

1. Excellent control of suspense

This story does suspense properly:

Slow, deliberate pacing

Information revealed gradually

Tension comes from what is implied, not explained

Key examples:

The kettle already boiling

“You’re not the first.”

The photographs changing rather than a jump-scare

This shows studied technique, not just instinct.

2. Strong narrative restraint

The writer resists over-explaining:

No backstory dump

No explicit “she was a ghost” reveal

The ending trusts the reader

That restraint is a mark of maturity, and AI often fails here by explaining too much.

3. Consistent tone and atmosphere

The storm, firelight, tea, and photographs all work together thematically:

warmth vs danger

hospitality vs entrapment

comfort masking threat

Nothing feels random.

Originality

While the concept (isolated cottage + ghostly host) is familiar, the execution is personal and controlled:

The tea motif

The “borrowed kindness” line

The photo reveal instead of a physical attack

This is original in handling, which matters more than premise at this level.

AI suspicion?

Very low.

Why:

Specific, purposeful details

Natural dialogue rhythm

Subtle imperfections in phrasing

No over-polished or generic moral

If AI was used at all, it would have been minimal (planning or light phrasing), not generative.

Weaknesses (minor, and tellingly human)

The opening paragraph is strong but slightly conventional

Some descriptions could be tightened for even more impact

These are writerly issues, not red flags.

# data[].attributes.headline
AWARD for THEMATIC POWER & SOCIAL COMMENTARY - Deadly leak by Maya Radeva, 12b

# data[].attributes.subject
AWARD for THEMATIC POWER & SOCIAL COMMENTARY - Deadly leak by Maya Radeva, 12b

# data[].attributes.body
Deadly Leak

Overall judgement

This is a standout piece for originality and thematic boldness. It is less “pretty” than some others, but it is memorable, unsettling, and deeply effective.

This is the kind of story judges remember.

Strengths

Highly original setting (school infrastructure horror)

Excellent slow-burn escalation

Strong social realism blended with horror

Final three-line ending is extremely effective

The mundane explanation → institutional denial → disappearance → drip ending is very well judged.

Limitations

Some sentences are long and dense

Less lyrical than other entries

Horror is suggestive rather than visual (which may divide taste)

These are stylistic, not technical weaknesses.

AI suspicion

Very low.
The institutional tone, moral discomfort, and uneven sentence rhythms are strongly human.

# data[].attributes.headline
AWARD for CREATIVE RISK & WORLD-BUILDING  - Chamber of reflections by Nacho Kolev, 12b

# data[].attributes.subject
AWARD for CREATIVE RISK & WORLD-BUILDING  - Chamber of reflections by Nacho Kolev, 12b

# data[].attributes.body
Chamber of Reflections

Overall judgement

This is a bold, unsettling, and imaginative piece, but it is less controlled than The Visitor. It has strong horror imagery and ambition, yet the suspense sometimes collapses into sensory overload rather than building steadily.

Strengths

1. High originality and risk-taking

This story takes real creative risks:

grotesque imagery

body horror elements

psychological distortion of reality

The monster design (thousands of eyes, distorted teeth) is not generic AI horror — it’s excessive, strange, and very personal.

2. Strong sensory writing

There is an intense focus on:

physical discomfort

touch (hands, tapping, filth)

sound (giggling, tapping, creaking)

This is effective in creating unease and shows the student understands how sensory detail drives fear.

3. Clear thematic centre

The mirror motif is used consistently:

self-perception

fear of one’s own body

reality vs hallucination

That cohesion is a real strength.

Weaknesses

1. Suspense escalation is too fast

The story moves very quickly from:

discomfort → hallucination → full monster reveal

Because of this:

tension spikes early

there’s little room for anticipation

the final reveal feels expected rather than shocking

2. Language sometimes works against clarity

Examples:

overloaded sentences

unclear spatial movement

slightly awkward phrasing (“snickered in creaks”, “yellow gnashers”)

These are human errors, but they do reduce impact.

3. Ending lacks resolution or twist

The final lines:

“The following day, her parents didn’t meet her in the morning…”

This is chilling, but very abrupt. It doesn’t reframe the story in the way a prize-winning ending often does.

AI suspicion?

Low.

Why:

Unusual imagery choices

Imperfect but expressive language

Willingness to be messy and disturbing

AI horror usually:

avoids this level of physical discomfort

cleans up phrasing

explains what’s happening

This feels human, raw, and over-ambitious rather than artificial.

# data[].attributes.headline
AWARD for EMOTIONAL DEPTH & HUMAN INSIGHT - A mystery story by Radimir Kumchev, 12b

# data[].attributes.subject
AWARD for EMOTIONAL DEPTH & HUMAN INSIGHT - A mystery story by Radimir Kumchev, 12b

# data[].attributes.body
A Mystery Story

Overall judgement

This is the most intellectually ambitious piece, but it is not well aligned with the suspense brief. It reads more like literary realism with a hint of unease than a suspense story.

Strengths

Distinctive voice

Strong sense of alienation

Willingness to critique society

Memorable final line

This student clearly thinks.

Limitations

Very long exposition before anything happens

Suspense is minimal and unresolved

Horror element is ambiguous and underdeveloped

The brief (“suspense techniques”) is only loosely met

AI suspicion

Very low.
This is too idiosyncratic, uneven, and opinionated to be AI-led.

Why A Mystery Story stands out (even without a title)

1. It has a clear human theme

At its core, the story explores:

grief

memory

the need to make sense of loss

The mystery isn’t really about solving a puzzle — it’s about coming to terms with absence. That’s a meaningful thematic centre, and one many horror/mystery stories don’t achieve.

2. It prioritises emotional logic over spectacle

What this story does well:

focuses on inner response rather than twists

lets the mystery remain partially unresolved

values atmosphere and reflection

That restraint is a choice, and a mature one.

3. It feels unmistakably human

This is important in the context of the competition.

The story:

isn’t overly polished

isn’t algorithmically “clever”

doesn’t chase shock

Instead, it feels like someone working something out through writing. That’s one of the strongest indicators of genuine authorship.

4. The lack of a title actually reinforces its tone

Oddly, the absence of a title:

suits the story’s quiet, searching quality

mirrors the idea of something unnamed or unresolved

feels accidental, but not damaging

If anything, it highlights that this wasn’t engineered for effect.

# data[].attributes.headline
AWARD for CONCEPTUAL & ETHICAL DEPTH - The hivemind - Desislava Dimova 12G

# data[].attributes.subject
AWARD for CONCEPTUAL & ETHICAL DEPTH - The hivemind - Desislava Dimova 12G

# data[].attributes.body
What makes The Hivemind work so well

1. It has a clear, serious theme

This is not just a vampire story.

At its core, it’s about:

loss of individuality

collective control vs moral choice

the danger of surveillance and enforced loyalty

Those are relevant, adult themes, especially for 18-year-olds.

The repetition of “For the town” isn’t decorative — it’s ideological pressure. That’s very effective.

2. The plot serves the theme (not the other way around)

Nothing here is random:

the seat at the head of the table

the synchronized movement

the shared thoughts

the ritual

Each element reinforces the idea that individual will is being absorbed.

That’s good storytelling.

3. It trusts the reader

The story doesn’t:

over-explain the hivemind

lecture about conformity

soften the ending

It lets the implication do the work.

AI tends to explain themes explicitly.
This story embeds them.

4. The ending is ethically disturbing (in a good way)

Cleo doesn’t fail because she’s weak.
She fails because she tries to resist invisibly.

That’s a very human tragedy:

good intentions

quiet resistance

punished by the system anyway

That’s not a gimmick ending — it’s thematic inevitability.

If I had one small critique (and it’s a compliment)

The story is very controlled. Some readers might want:

one slightly messier emotional beat

one moment of hesitation or doubt voiced aloud

But that’s a taste question, not a flaw.

Bottom line

The Hivemind is:

thoughtful

morally coherent

thematically relevant

clearly written by someone making conscious choices

If a student asked “Does my story say something?” —
this one absolutely does.

# data[].attributes.headline
DISTINCTION for NARRATIVE VOICE & PSYCHOLOGICAL AMBIGUITY - Once you see it - Aleksandra Koleolova 12g 

# data[].attributes.subject
DISTINCTION for NARRATIVE VOICE & PSYCHOLOGICAL AMBIGUITY - Once you see it - Aleksandra Koleolova 12g 

# data[].attributes.body
Once You See It

Overall judgement

This is a strong, ambitious narrative with emotional weight and a well-handled frame structure. It shows clear human decision-making, even where it’s imperfect.

Strengths (human element)

Framed interrogation structure is effective

The mist as metaphor (knowledge / guilt / obsession) works well

Family scenes feel lived-in and specific

Ending line (“STOP! Don’t look back!”) is emotionally resonant

There is moral ambiguity, which is very human.

Limitations

Some exposition could be tightened

The supernatural rules are intentionally vague, which may frustrate some readers

But again — these are choices, not flaws.

AI suspicion

Low.
The emotional focus, uneven pacing, and willingness to sit with ambiguity point strongly to human authorship.

# data[].attributes.headline
DISTINCTION for ORIGINAL CONCEPT & USE of SETTING - Whispers in the dark - Nia Slavova, 12g

# data[].attributes.subject
DISTINCTION for ORIGINAL CONCEPT & USE of SETTING - Whispers in the dark - Nia Slavova, 12g

# data[].attributes.body
“Whispers in the Dark” (Locker 213)

Overall impression

This is a standout school-based horror with a sharp central idea and excellent use of setting. It feels fresh because it is specific.

Human strengths

The locker myth is immediately believable

The photograph device is very effective and well paced

The final image (being in the photo despite running) is chilling

The shadow motif is subtle and smart

This story understands that recognition is scarier than surprise.

Craft notes

Tight structure

Clear escalation

Ending recontextualises earlier details

AI feel?

Very low.
The specificity of the school environment and the emotional logic feel deeply human.

In short

This is the kind of story students remember and retell.

Theme:
🟢 Identity erasure
🟢 Being replaced / unseen

Why it works:

The photograph replaces the self

The school setting reinforces conformity

The horror is existential, not violent

Very strong adolescent-relevant theming, handled maturely.

# data[].attributes.headline
DISTINCTION for ATMOSPHERIC STORYTELLING - Whispers in the Dark - Daria Ganeva - 12g

# data[].attributes.subject
DISTINCTION for ATMOSPHERIC STORYTELLING - Whispers in the Dark - Daria Ganeva - 12g

# data[].attributes.body
“Whispers in the Dark” (Ashcombe Cottage)

Overall impression

This is a very clean, atmospheric ghost story with excellent suspense mechanics. It is effective and readable, though slightly more familiar in shape.

Human strengths

Strong control of pacing and escalation

Sensory details are selective, not overloaded

The invisible footsteps detail is genuinely unsettling

The final warning (“before you become the next voice”) lands well

Craft notes

The narrator’s motivation (research + personal need) grounds the story

Structure is textbook suspense — which is not a flaw, but a choice

AI feel?

Low–moderate.
This is very polished, but still feels student-authored. It leans into familiar haunted-house beats, which slightly reduces distinctiveness, not authenticity.

In short

A technically strong story that shows good judgement, even if it plays within known conventions.

🏚️ Whispers in the Dark (Ashcombe Cottage)

Interprets the title literally and atmospherically

Focuses on:

isolation

classic ghost-story mechanics

the danger of becoming “the next voice”

Strong suspense craft, traditional structure

This shows technical competence and genre fluency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Неозаглавен документ

# data[].attributes.headline
Certificate for Sustained Tension and Structural Control - For maintaining suspense throughout the narrative and demonstrating strong control of pacing and narrative structure - Remain Silent - Donika Danekova, 12g

# data[].attributes.subject
Certificate for Sustained Tension and Structural Control - For maintaining suspense throughout the narrative and demonstrating strong control of pacing and narrative structure - Remain Silent - Donika Danekova, 12g

# data[].attributes.body
REMAIN SILENT

Overall judgement

This is a highly polished, confident suspense story with a strong central concept. It is technically impressive, but it does feel more AI-shaped than the top human-written contender.

That doesn’t make it bad — it just affects how distinctive it feels.

Strengths

Very clear suspense structure (rule → investigation → violation → consequence)

Effective central motif (bells / silence / voices)

Clean pacing and strong twist (“They restrained the dead.”)

This shows excellent understanding of suspense mechanics.

Limitations

Language is very smooth and evenly “good” throughout

Characterisation is functional rather than personal

Several familiar AI-horror elements cluster together:

investigative journalist

secretive town

ledger entry

rule-based supernatural logic

Nothing is wrong — but it feels constructed rather than discovered.

AI suspicion

Moderate.
This is the most AI-polished of the entries so far, though still competently curated by a student.

# data[].attributes.headline
Certificate for Effective Atmosphere through Restraint - For creating tension through simplicity, pacing, and careful use of detail, showing that less can be more in suspense writing - What waits in the dark - Gergana Srebreva XII "d"

# data[].attributes.subject
Certificate for Effective Atmosphere through Restraint - For creating tension through simplicity, pacing, and careful use of detail, showing that less can be more in suspense writing - What waits in the dark - Gergana Srebreva XII "d"

# data[].attributes.body
What Waits in the Dark

Overall judgement

This is a quietly effective, very human piece. It’s deceptively simple, but it shows excellent control of suspense for its scale.

It doesn’t aim for shock — it aims for experience — and that’s a strength.

Strengths (human element)

Clear understanding of childlike fear and imagination

Excellent pacing: short lines, pauses, sound effects

The reveal is gentle, believable, and emotionally satisfying

The shadow / horns / cat ears twist is classic, but handled with care rather than irony.

Limitations

Less ambitious than some other entries

Stakes are small (no lasting consequence)

But this feels intentional, not weak.

AI suspicion

Very low.
The simplicity, restraint, and age-appropriate tone are hard for AI to land naturally without being prompted very specifically.

# data[].attributes.headline
Certificate for Confident Genre Writing - For demonstrating a clear understanding of genre expectations and suspense techniques in a well-structured narrative - Graveyard of Doom - Viktoria Georgieva XII D

# data[].attributes.subject
Certificate for Confident Genre Writing - For demonstrating a clear understanding of genre expectations and suspense techniques in a well-structured narrative - Graveyard of Doom - Viktoria Georgieva XII D

# data[].attributes.body
Graveyard of Doom

Strengths

1. Clear suspense techniques

The student demonstrates understanding of:

eerie setting

gradual escalation

withheld reveal (the grave with her name)

This shows learning has taken place.

2. Effective final line

The closing sentence is strong and memorable, and it neatly reinforces the theme.

Limitations (in a competition context)

1. Predictability

For a Year 12 prize entry, several elements are familiar:

the dare

Halloween night

name on the gravestone

“never go there” rule ending

None of these are bad — but together they reduce originality.

2. Language is competent rather than distinctive

The writing is clear and atmospheric, but:

imagery is familiar

phrasing is safe

there’s little stylistic risk

Compared to The Visitor, it doesn’t show the same authorial confidence.

3. Character depth is minimal

Madeline functions mainly as a vehicle for fear. That’s acceptable, but stronger entries make us feel why this character matters.

AI suspicion (revisited)

As before:

Not fully AI-generated

Possibly lightly assisted

But clearly student-authored

This doesn’t affect the quality judgement either way.

Why this is good student writing

1. Clear narrative control

The student:

establishes setting quickly

builds tension step by step

ends with a purposeful, thematic line

Many students struggle to finish stories effectively. This one does.

2. Genre awareness

The writer understands horror conventions and uses them intentionally:

sensory detail

slow reveal

restraint (we don’t see everything)

That shows learning, not shortcutting.

3. Voice is present

Even if AI helped polish wording, the choices are human:

when to stop the scene

what not to explain

which detail matters (the name on the grave)

AI doesn’t care about those decisions — writers do.

# data[].attributes.headline
Certificate for Clear Narrative Framing and Setting - For effectively using a legend-style structure and setting to build tension and sustain reader interest - The final scream - Victoria Atamian - 12d

# data[].attributes.subject
Certificate for Clear Narrative Framing and Setting - For effectively using a legend-style structure and setting to build tension and sustain reader interest - The final scream - Victoria Atamian - 12d

# data[].attributes.body
“The Final Scream”

Overall impression

A classic ghost legend executed with clarity and confidence. It’s effective, though more conventional than some others.

Human strengths

Clear sense of place (the abandoned theatre)

Framing as a legend works well

Recorder motif ties beginning and end neatly

Craft notes

Some descriptions are familiar, but well chosen

Clara’s voice is evocative without being overwritten