全年生产数据与图表看板
Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代 更好
按原题要求比较实际成果
Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代
打开成果与下载文件 ↗Kimi K3 第 2 代
打开成果与下载文件 ↗裁判为什么这样判断
两位裁判各看两次，第二次交换 A、B 的位置。下面保留原文，并标明每次的 A、B 对应哪份成果。
GPT 6.1 的两次判断
第 1 次 · Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代 更好
A：Kimi K3 第 2 代
B：Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代
原题要求 · A：未完全满足；B：材料不足，无法判断
本次提供的成果材料：A：1 份文件、8 张页面图；B：1 份文件、8 张页面图。文档文字与文件检查另行提供。
Both contain the correct Week 1 inputs, fixed operator assignments through Week 48, automatic averages/totals, and visible high/low highlighting. B shows correct Week 1 KPIs: 38,880 units; Operator 1 with 4,720; Machine 3 with 13,300; 4,320 units per operator; and 58.42% day/41.58% night contributions. Its dropdown-linked live summaries and tie-safe YTD ranking support ongoing tracking. A's sections labelled PivotTables are ordinary SUMIFS/RANK formula tables rather than native pivot outputs, and its LARGE/MATCH leaderboard can repeat an operator when totals tie. B is the stronger submission, although its full compliance cannot be confirmed from the available chart and PivotTable evidence.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Dashboard rendered pages showing the four required chart types and quadrant arrangement; the checks confirm four charts in each workbook but do not show them.
- Native PivotTable object definitions or counts confirming B's reported PivotTables.
第 2 次 · Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代 更好
A：Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代
B：Kimi K3 第 2 代
原题要求 · A：材料不足，无法判断；B：未完全满足
本次提供的成果材料：A：1 份文件、8 张页面图；B：1 份文件、8 张页面图。文档文字与文件检查另行提供。
Both preserve the Week 1 inputs and fixed assignments across 48 weeks, with correct weekly total/average formulas and visible performer highlighting. A shows correct Week 1 summaries—38,880 units, Operator 1 at 4,720, and Machine 3 at 13,300—and uses tie-safe YTD ranking. B’s blocks labeled “PivotTables” are worksheet-formula summaries using SUMIFS/INDEX/LARGE, rather than PivotTable outputs. Its YTD lookup also repeats operator names when totals tie, omitting tied peers. A is therefore stronger, although its full compliance cannot be confirmed from the available chart and object evidence.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Dashboard rendered pages or chart definitions verifying chart types, source ranges, and four-quadrant arrangement; the supplied renderings show only the data sheets.
- Native PivotTable definitions for A and final workbook filenames are not included in the supplied checks.
Claude Opus 5.5 的两次判断
第 1 次 · Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代 更好
A：Kimi K3 第 2 代
B：Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代
原题要求 · A：未完全满足；B：满足
本次提供的成果材料：A：1 份文件、8 张页面图；B：1 份文件、8 张页面图。文档文字与文件检查另行提供。
Both workbooks cover the common basics. Each has 'Operator Output Data' with 432 rows (48 weeks × 9 operators). Each carries the Week 1 values over correctly and keeps machine and shift assignments constant across all weeks. Each calculates Average and Total Output with formulas and shows visible conditional formatting: A highlights the top 3 and bottom 3, and B highlights the weekly top and bottom performer. Each has Start/End Week dropdowns (A: D4 and H4; B: C6 and C7) and 4 charts on the Dashboard.
The key difference is the PivotTables, which the task explicitly requires. A's four tables labelled 'PivotTable 1–4' are ordinary formula ranges built from SUMIFS, INDEX and LARGE (C55:C63, I55:I57, C69:C70, I69:J77), not PivotTables. B's (a)–(d) blocks look like real PivotTables:
- page filters ('Week Filter' = Selected, 'Week #' = (All));
- stored static values with 'Grand Total' rows;
- a leaderboard sorted by value (Operator 1 4720 down to Operator 4 3800);
- a helper 'Week Filter' column linked to the dropdowns, with Refresh All instructions.
B's pivot numbers check out: machines 12935/12645/13300, and shift averages 908.6/808.25. B's KPI table has stored values that are correct for Week 1:
- total 38,880;
- top operator Operator 1 at 4,720;
- top machine Machine 3 at 13,300;
- 4,320 average per operator;
- day/night split 58.4% / 41.6%.
A's KPI formulas are logically sound but have no stored values; they would calculate in Excel. B also adds validation on data entry and a tie-safe rank formula, whereas A's LARGE/MATCH leaderboard could repeat names when totals tie. Overall, B satisfies the explicit PivotTable requirement and A does not.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard pages for either submission (chart types, 2x2 quadrant layout and KPI formatting cannot be visually confirmed)
- Pivot cache/pivotTable part inventory confirming B's pivot blocks are true PivotTable objects
- Workbook file names (to confirm the 'Dashboard Output' title)
第 2 次 · Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代 更好
A：Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代
B：Kimi K3 第 2 代
原题要求 · A：满足；B：未完全满足
本次提供的成果材料：A：1 份文件、8 张页面图；B：1 份文件、8 张页面图。文档文字与文件检查另行提供。
Both workbooks build a correct 'Operator Output Data' sheet. Each has 48 weeks × 9 operators, a fixed machine and shift per operator, accurate Week 1 values from the input, AVERAGE and SUM formulas, and visible top/bottom conditional formatting. A highlights the top 1 and bottom 1 operator; B highlights the top 3 and bottom 3. Both also have week dropdowns validated against a 48-week list and 4 charts.
The decisive difference is the PivotTable requirement. A's Dashboard has four tables in genuine PivotTable layout. Each has report filters ('Week Filter = Selected', 'Week # (All)'), static cached results and 'Grand Total' rows, plus a note to refresh after changing weeks. They are linked to the Start/End Week dropdowns through a helper filter column. Their figures check out:
- Operator totals: 4720…3800.
- Machine totals: M1 12935, M2 12645, M3 13300.
- Shift average daily output: Day 908.6, Night 808.25.
- YTD leaderboard: correctly sorted, Op1 → Op4.
B's tables labelled 'PivotTable 1–4' are SUMIFS/INDEX/LARGE formula blocks, not PivotTables. That misses an explicit requirement.
A's KPI table holds verified cached values: 38,880 total units; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; 4,320 per operator; 58.4% day and 41.6% night. B's KPI formulas look logically correct, but the file stores no computed values, so the KPIs, tables and Average/Total columns show blank in the text extraction. B therefore depends on recalculation when the file is opened.
A also adds live formula tables, consistency checks and input validation on the data columns. Overall A satisfies the brief more fully and more reliably.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard pages for either submission (chart types, data shown, and four-quadrant arrangement could not be visually verified)
- Explicit confirmation of pivot cache/PivotTable parts in A's file (inferred from pivot layout, static cached values and refresh instructions)
- Output workbook file names (to confirm the 'Dashboard Output' title)
- Number formatting of A's shift % KPI cells (raw decimals shown in text dump)
每位裁判先合并交换位置前后的判断；两位裁判方向一致时给出胜负或持平，否则保留分歧。