some further corrections

I must have not had enough coffee last Thursday, as there are more issues that should be addressed regarding round 1.

Question 3 inconsistencies -- it appears that in Question 3, the promise that the map in the test data would be the same as supplied in the question, did not hold. A copy of the map was provided to make a maze question more accessible to the teams that might not have been able to traverse the data set otherwise; unfortunately this 2nd copy has introduced a redundancy that went out of sync as the questions and/or test data was edited. (this is precisely why copy/pasting blocks of code in your programs is a bad practice.) A few of the teams that went that route have lost some points, that should have been counted otherwise.

Another point is that a correction needs to be made to the below announcement. Waterloo Collegiate Institute has also made it into 1st round's top 10. (Why is your school named so similar to Woburn C.I. ?)

And yes, I am aware that Q5's difficulty was compromised by heuristic methods.

Although it should be expected that sometimes mistakes happen, it seems that this first round has seen more than it should have. I apologize for the sub-par quality of the round. More time will be dedicated to the quality of test data, and I'm looking into ways to have the contest package be reviewed for mistakes and inconsistencies before the rounds start.