25 June 2026 · Key milestone
The WCA announces the removal of Clock
The WCA Board announced two major changes to the official event list: Face-Turning Octahedron would become an official event in January 2027, while Clock would be removed following the 2027 World Championship.
This page separates the Board's published rationale from the analysis of how those reasons connect to the specific decision that followed. The original WCA announcement remains the authoritative source.
What was announced
Two changes to the official event list
The announcement presented both changes together as strategic decisions concerning the future of the WCA's official events catalogue.
The Board's published rationale
Five lines of reasoning
The announcement did not rely on one single argument. It combined operational, spectator, identity, historical and consultation-related considerations.
Incidents and operational difficulty
Clock was described as relatively problematic, highly prone to incidents, difficult to scramble correctly and dependent on procedures or equipment different from other speedsolving events.
Spectator appeal
The Board argued that determining whether a Clock is solved and following a competitor's progress are difficult to observe at a distance, particularly for non-specialist audiences.
Dissimilarity from other events
Clock was described as fundamentally different from the puzzles used in other official WCA events.
Historical recognition
The announcement stated that Clock's existing recognition by the WCA arose from historical factors.
WCA identity
Removing Clock was presented as strengthening the WCA's identity as an organisation centred on three-dimensional geometrical twisty puzzles rather than other mechanical puzzles.
“Removing Clock strengthens the WCA’s identity as being an organization for three dimensional geometrical twisty puzzles and not other mechanical puzzles.”
WCA Board · 25 June 2026
From reasons to criteria
Some of these concerns are measurable
Several arguments in the announcement could, in principle, be assessed using objective or reproducible evidence.
The announcement identifies concerns, but does not publish the metrics, comparative thresholds or weighting used to determine when those concerns justify derecognition.
Similarity and identity
Similar enough. Different enough. Too different.
The announcement describes FTO as sufficiently aligned with existing WCA events to integrate smoothly, while also being different enough to bring something new. Clock, by contrast, is described as highly dissimilar.
and different enough to bring something fresh
and therefore presented as outside the desired identity
If similarity or dissimilarity is relevant to recognition, where is the boundary? What characteristics are being compared, and how is the same standard applied consistently to every event?
Historical recognition
Explaining why Clock entered the catalogue is not the same as defining why it should leave
The announcement states that Clock's WCA recognition arose from historical factors. That may explain how it became an official event, but it does not itself define the criteria an existing event must meet in order to remain one.
Historical origin can explain inclusion. It is not, by itself, a retention or removal criterion.
Cross-check with the survey
What the consultation did — and did not — establish
The announcement explicitly states that the May–June Volunteer and Community surveys were one input among several factors considered. That distinction matters.
The survey clearly supports adding FTO. It does not provide equivalent Community support for removing an existing event in order to do so.
Alternatives
Removal was not the only available management mechanism
In the same announcement, the Board discussed the possible future management of other events and referred to mechanisms already available, including stricter qualification requirements and holding some “quiet” events at separate championship competitions.
What framework determines when a concern should lead to removal, reduced status, stricter qualification, separate championship treatment, or no change at all?
The missing connection
From published reasons to a specific outcome
The governance question
The Board had reasons. The missing piece is the traceability.
The 25 June announcement provides reasons for considering changes to Clock's status. What it does not provide is the decision framework showing how those considerations were evaluated, weighted and compared, or why they resulted specifically in removal rather than another available outcome.
The question is not whether the Board had reasons. The question is how those reasons became this decision.
This distinction becomes more important later in the timeline. On 18 July, Oliver Hexter described the Board as having reached its decision through a “balance of consideration” and discussed the desire to avoid continued growth of the event list. On 19 August, the Board subsequently committed to a more transparent process, greater consultation and the development of a framework for future event changes.
Primary source
Read the original WCA announcement
The quotations and rationale described on this page are based on the WCA Board announcement published on 25 June 2026.