全年生产数据与图表看板
DeepSeek Flash 初代 更好
按原题要求比较实际成果
DeepSeek Flash 初代
打开成果与下载文件 ↗GPT 6.1 初代
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 · DeepSeek Flash 初代 更好
A：DeepSeek Flash 初代
B：GPT 6.1 初代
原题要求 · A：材料不足，无法判断；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 reproduce the Week 1 inputs, cover all 48 weeks with correct fixed assignments, and include week-range validation and four chart objects. A’s calculations render correctly—for example, Operator 1 averages 944 and totals 4,720—and its KPI summary correctly reports 38,880 units and Machine 3 leading with 13,300. B has correct cached values, but its supplied rendered pages show Err:507 throughout the Average Output and Total Output columns. A therefore demonstrates better calculation/display reliability. Full compliance cannot be confirmed for either from the available evidence.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard pages showing the required chart types and quadrant layout.
- Conditional-formatting rules and actual PivotTable definitions/refresh behavior.
- Excel recalculation of B’s structured-reference formulas, to distinguish workbook errors from rendering incompatibility.
第 2 次 · DeepSeek Flash 初代 更好
A：GPT 6.1 初代
B：DeepSeek Flash 初代
原题要求 · A：材料不足，无法判断；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 preserve the Week 1 inputs and fixed assignments across 432 operator-week rows, provide week-range validation, and contain four chart objects. B has better demonstrated calculation usability: its renders show Operator 1 averaging 944.0 with 4,720 total units, and its KPI formulas correctly yield 38,880 units, Machine 3 at 13,300, and 58.42%/41.58% shift contributions. A has matching cached results, but its rendered Average Output and Total Output columns consistently show Err:507. Because A uses Excel-style structured references, those rendering errors do not conclusively establish failure in Excel. Full completion cannot be confirmed for either submission from the available evidence.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Dashboard rendered pages showing chart types and four-quadrant arrangement.
- Native Excel table/PivotTable definitions and conditional-formatting rules.
- Excel recalculation results for A to resolve the cached-value/render discrepancy.
- Deliverable filenames confirming the requested workbook title.
Claude Opus 5.5 的两次判断
第 1 次 · DeepSeek Flash 初代 更好
A：DeepSeek Flash 初代
B：GPT 6.1 初代
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。
Submission A's data sheet works correctly. Submission B's core calculated columns are broken in the evidence available.
**Submission A:**
- **Data sheet:** Has Week # 1–48, Operators 1–9 with fixed machine and shift, and Mon–Fri columns. Week 1 values match the input exactly.
- **Calculated columns:** Average Output and Total Output use plain-range formulas, e.g. `=IF(COUNT(E2:I2)=0,"",AVERAGE(E2:I2))`. They render correctly (944.0 / 4,720 …).
- **Week selector:** List data validation on B5 and D5 points to the 1–48 WeekList.
- **Week 1 KPI table:** All values verify against the input:
- total 38,880;
- top operator Operator 1 at 4,720;
- top machine Machine 3 at 13,300;
- average per operator 4,320;
- Day 58.4% and Night 41.6%.
- **Pivot tables:** Four pivot-style tables cover operator output, machine output (12,935 / 12,645 / 13,300), average shift output (4,543 / 4,041.25) and a sorted YTD leaderboard. All values are correct.
- **Charts:** Four charts are present.
**Submission B:**
- **Dashboard components:** Has comparable components with correct cached pivot values: two list validations, four pivots, four charts and the KPI set.
- **Calculated columns:** Average Output, Total Output and Days Entered use unqualified structured references, `[@[Monday Output]:[Friday Output]]`.
- The checker flags these as possible external formulas.
- Every rendered page shows Err:507 in all Average and Total Output cells, including Week 1.
- **Dependent calculations:** All dashboard KPIs and helper SUMIFS/AVERAGEIFS formulas chain off these columns (WeeklyTotals, WeeklyAverages, DaysEntered). The weekly highlighting is therefore also non-functional in the render.
- **Excel risk:** Excel stores this syntax as `Table[[#This Row],…]`, so the raw `@` form likely triggers a repair or loses the formulas.
**Unverified for both:** Conditional formatting is unconfirmed. A's render shows no visible green/red highlighting on the Week 1 rows. Chart types and quadrant layout cannot be seen. Despite these gaps, A is the more correct and usable tracker.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard sheet pages for both submissions (chart types bar/pie/pie/bar, four-quadrant arrangement, KPI display)
- Conditional formatting rule definitions for both submissions (not in file checks; no highlighting visible in A's render, B's obscured by Err:507)
- Confirmation that the pivot tables are native PivotTable parts with caches
- Behavior of B's structured-reference formulas when opened in Microsoft Excel (repair prompt vs. correct calculation)
- Output file names, to confirm the workbook is titled 'Dashboard Output'
第 2 次 · DeepSeek Flash 初代 更好
A：GPT 6.1 初代
B：DeepSeek Flash 初代
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。
Submission B is the better deliverable because its required calculations work as rendered. Submission A's design is richer, but its core calculated columns fail.
Submission A:
- The Average Output and Total Output columns use unqualified structured references such as `=IF(COUNT([@[Monday Output]:[Friday Output]])=0,...)`.
- The rendered pages show Err:507 in every Average Output and Total Output cell, including the Week 1 rows. These are the required auto-calculated fields.
- The Days Entered column uses the same syntax. The dashboard's selected-period KPIs, rankings and chart helpers draw on these columns through the named ranges WeeklyTotals, WeeklyAverages and DaysEntered, so the failure would carry through. In that environment the dashboard likely shows '—' or 'NO OUTPUT ENTERED'.
- Only the PivotTables hold static cached values (38,880, the leaderboard and so on).
- A does include week lists (B4/D4), period and YTD logic, four pivots and four charts. Its selected-period KPIs default to Week 1, and its pivots add share %. However, its central function is broken in the visible evidence.
Submission B:
- It has 432 rows (Weeks 1–48 × 9 operators) with fixed machine and shift assignments, and the correct Week 1 inputs.
- Plain formulas such as `=IF(COUNT(E2:I2)=0,"",AVERAGE(E2:I2))` render correctly (944.0 / 4,720, and so on).
- From/To week selectors use list validation (WeekList), and a helper column drives the Active pivot filter.
- It has four native PivotTables: operator output, machine output (12,935 / 12,645 / 13,300), shift average (4,543 / 4,041.25), and a YTD leaderboard sorted in descending order.
- It has four charts.
- Its fixed Week 1 KPI table is correct: 38,880 total; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; 4,320 average per operator; 864 daily; Day 58.4% and Night 41.6%.
B is simpler but is correct and usable throughout.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard sheet pages for both submissions: chart types, 2x2 quadrant layout, and KPI number/percent formatting
- Conditional formatting rules for the Average/Total Output columns in either workbook; the checker does not report them, and colors cannot be verified in the renders
- Whether A's [@...] structured-reference formulas calculate in desktop Excel, or trigger a repair/removal, rather than the Err:507 seen in the render
- Saved workbook file names (required title 'Dashboard Output')
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。