I was thinking of joining this jam but the judging categories seem...off.
"DIFFICULTY - How hard is your level? Or perhaps too easy? To find a perfect balance is truly an art of making levels!"
Huh? A level can be good or bad regardless of weather it's easy or difficult, to imply there's some middling difficulty that all levels should aspire to is a vague goal at best. Surely a better metric would be on how well a level introduces it's mechanics or something. I've played plenty of levels that feel more frustrating than difficult levels because they fail to introduce mechanics or have no consistency in where the challenge comes from or such. Even then, if the level has some narrative in a similar style of Celeste, then having the elements be introduced quickly if it were trying to give a sense of overwhelming chaos or such would still be arguably good design.
Then going to "Jumps, obstacles" and "overall". The first two are very specific whilst the 3rd is incredibly vague. I mean jumps and obstacles already overlap and overlap with "difficulty". Then what about non covered factors? It seems odd that aspects such as creativity aren't even really assessed except for maybe as a minor point in "overall".
I'm not really sure why "controls" is even here. Isn't the point to judge the level? I suppose you could technically judge how well the control fits the level but again there's quite a room for overlap here. Then with consideration to the fact that people can use an existing platformer template and I'm not really sure why it's being judged.