Fix these:
"The Dataset" box is not aligned on the left-hand side with "Why Price Prediction?" and is not aligned on the bottom with "Future Work". Fix this.

The UROP logo/banner is way too close to "The Dataset" box. Fix this (this can be fixed by aligning that box with the "Future Work" box on the bottom).

In "The Dataset" - "for which sufficient data exists on the market..." - Even if that term is well-defined (see questions), reword this sentence. I think you're trying to say that the materials exist on the market, but what you end up saying with this sentence is that the data for those materials exists on the market. Confusing grammar.

The "g" in "Sourcing" in the poster title comes way too close to the graph at the top right. Use a smaller font size or thin the red border on the graph for a better look.



Consider changing:
"The Dataset" feels out of place as a header because of the article when none of the other titles have articles. Consider just "Dataset"

"How does the Model Perform?" feels out of place as a header because of two un-capitalized words in a row. It is also much longer than all other headers (only one that runs onto a second line). Consider "Model Performance" or similar.

"Machine Learning at Work" and the blue/green plot beneath it are not centered between the leftmost column of information (including "Why Price Prediction?") and the 2nd-to-right column of information (including "How does the Model Perform?"). Consider shifting both to the left and reducing the length of the red bar with your name if necessary.

"The Dataset" box is not aligned on the top with "How does the Model Perform?" and "Future Work". I don't think this is as much of a problem as the other alignment issues (see above), but consider reducing the height of the red bar with your name to allow you to top-align these.

The linear regression plot (smaller purple plot) is CRAZY small compared to everything else on the poster. I'd put this in "Fix," but I don't know what you'd change to make it bigger. In any case, though, if you can find space for it at all, try to make this bigger.



Questions:
I do not know if this is correct or not in your field and with your data, but the r^2 values given in the box describing the two purple plots feel very, very long compared to what I am used to. Check your significant figures and reduce the length of those decimals if what you wrote is non-standard or incorrect.

In "Why Price Prediction?" - "...any given material they use won't suffer supply issues or price spikes/floors." - Can you replace "price spikes/floors" with the simpler and more concise phrase "price volatility"?

In "Why Price Prediction?" - "Machine learning is a powerful... to predict material flow." - Is this actually true in as broad of a way that you are claiming with this sentence? I don't know, but I find that hard to believe. If you're not confident that it's true in such a general sense, narrow this claim.

In "The Dataset" - "for which sufficient data exists on the market..." - Is "sufficient data" a well-defined term in your field or does it have meaning that would otherwise be obvious to the informed reader? If not, consider defining it if you can find space.

In "Machine Learning at Work" - "...an ideal predictor-one that's 100% correct." - Do you actually need to clarify what you mean by "ideal predictor" here? And if you do, could you just make this sentence more concise by removing the phrase "ideal predictor" and replacing it with "a predictor that is 100% correct." or similar?

In "How does the Model Perform?" - you use the phrase "method of normalization" or a rephrasing of that several times. Is there more than one type of production normalization (that you mention in "Machine Learning at Work"? If yes, specify it. If not, "production normalization" is fewer characters than "method of normalization" and very similar to "normalization method", so you could consider using one of those shorter phrases to be less verbose without screwing with your formatting.

In "Future Work" - "We are currently in discussions regarding cooperation with the USGS for further support to expand the dataset." - Do you actually need to mention this instead of devoting more space to discussing HOW you plan to refine the Random Forest algorithm? I feel like the latter would be more interesting and a better use of space, unless there is some important reason why you MUST mention your talks with the USGS.