全年生产数据与图表看板
Claude Opus 5.5 第 1 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 ↗Claude Opus 5.5 第 1 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 1 代 更好
A：Claude Opus 5.5 第 1 代
B：Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 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。
A has a modest usability advantage for ongoing tracking. Both reproduce Week 1 correctly, prepare 48 weeks with fixed assignments, calculate weekly averages/totals, and show correct KPIs: 38,880 units, Operator 1 at 4,720, Machine 3 at 13,300, and day/night contributions of 58.42%/41.58%. A’s summaries use explicit operator identifiers and support YTD through the selected end week. B’s live operator roster references source cells B5:B13, making its summaries vulnerable to repeated operator labels if the tracker is sorted by operator. Both report four charts, but the supplied evidence does not establish their types/layout or verify native PivotTable objects, so full completion remains unconfirmed.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Dashboard renderings or chart definitions showing the requested chart types, source series and four-quadrant layout.
- Native PivotTable and structured Excel Table definitions.
- Conditional-formatting rules confirming coverage through Week 48.
- Delivered workbook filenames confirming the title Dashboard Output.
第 2 次 · Claude Opus 5.5 第 1 代 更好
A：Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代
B：Claude Opus 5.5 第 1 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, maintain the machine/shift assignments across 48 weeks, calculate weekly averages and totals, and report correct KPIs: 38,880 units, Operator 1 at 4,720, and Machine 3 at 13,300. B has the edge for selected-week/YTD review: its YTD formulas in K67:K75 stop at the selected End Week and have a corresponding 'In YTD' helper flag. A instead totals all entered weeks, independently of the selection, using the latest populated week as its YTD endpoint. B therefore better aligns historical weekly reviews with their YTD totals. Full compliance cannot be verified from the available evidence.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard pages or chart definitions confirming the required chart types, data sources, and four-quadrant arrangement; only data-sheet pages and chart counts were supplied.
- Native PivotTable definitions and refresh/filter behavior; the inventories show output areas but do not establish the underlying objects.
- Submitted workbook filename/title.
Claude Opus 5.5 的两次判断
第 1 次 · Claude Opus 5.5 第 1 代 更好
A：Claude Opus 5.5 第 1 代
B：Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代
原题要求 · A：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 are largely complete and closely matched. Both have the two required sheets and 432 data rows covering Week 1–48 for nine operators. Week 1 values match the input in both, and machine and shift assignments stay constant all year. Average Output and Total Output are formula-driven. Both have Start/End Week data-validation drop-downs on the Dashboard. Both show pivot-style tables for (a) operator, (b) machine, (c) shift average and (d) a YTD leaderboard sorted in descending order, plus four charts each. The KPI values are identical and correct in both: 38,880 total; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; 4,320 per operator; Day 58.4% and Night 41.6%. Neither has cached errors. A has a small edge for these reasons: (1) The conditional-formatting requirement asks to highlight top and bottom performers. A's render shows the top 3 (Operators 1, 5, 9) in green and the bottom 3 (Operators 2, 4, 8) in red on both Average and Total. B highlights only one top (Operator 1) and one bottom (Operator 4). (2) A's data table is cleaner: headers start in row 1 and the helper flag columns are kept out of the printed view. B's printed table shows the 'Week Filter' helper column and title rows above the header. (3) A's YTD leaderboard follows the selected End Week, and its shift pivot shows both weekly and daily averages. B does have extra data-validation lists on the data-entry sheet and a direct Week # filter on its pivots, which helps usability somewhat. Overall the difference is modest.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard pages for either submission: chart types (bar/pie), quadrant layout and KPI number formatting could not be visually verified
- Whether the pivot-style tables are genuine Excel PivotTable objects with valid caches in either file
- Workbook file names (whether titled 'Dashboard Output')
第 2 次 · 持平
A：Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代
B：Claude Opus 5.5 第 1 代
原题要求 · A：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。
The two workbooks are functionally near-identical, and neither has a demonstrated error or omission that outweighs the other's minor additions.
Shared evidence for both:
- Both have the 'Operator Output Data' and 'Dashboard' sheets.
- Both have 432 data rows (Weeks 1–48 × 9 operators).
- Both carry the Week 1 input values correctly (e.g., Operator 1 totals 4,720 and Operator 4 totals 3,800).
- Both keep the same machine and shift for each operator in every week.
- Both calculate Average and Total Output with IF(COUNT(...)=0,"",AVERAGE/SUM) formulas.
- Both show conditional formatting on the Average and Total columns in the renders.
- Both have Start/End Week drop-down validation lists on the Dashboard.
- Both have 4 charts and four PivotTables that filter on a helper flag column.
- Both pivots show matching values: Machine 1/2/3 = 12,935 / 12,645 / 13,300, and Day/Night average daily output = 908.6 / 808.25.
- Both have a sorted YTD leaderboard (Op1 4,720 down to Op4 3,800).
- Both KPI tables show correct values: 38,880 total; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; 4,320 per operator; Day 58.4% and Night 41.6%.
A's minor advantages:
- List validation on the Week, Operator, Machine and Shift columns of the data sheet.
- A Week # page filter on the pivots.
- Separate KPI rows for each output total.
B's minor advantages:
- Top-3/bottom-3 highlighting.
- Pivot (c) shows both weekly and daily shift averages.
- YTD is tied to the selected End Week.
- A clean header in row 1 of the data sheet.
- A notes section.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard sheet: the chart types (bar/pie) and the 2x2 quadrant arrangement could not be visually verified for either submission
- Confirmation that the pivot areas are true PivotTable objects (pivot cache definitions) rather than static values
- Output file names, to confirm the workbook is titled 'Dashboard Output'
- Conditional formatting rule definitions for Weeks 2–48
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。