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
DeepSeek Flash 初代
打开成果与下载文件 ↗Claude Opus 5.5 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：DeepSeek Flash 初代
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。
Both accurately reproduce the nine Week 1 records, prepare 48 weeks with consistent machine/shift assignments, and calculate the correct KPIs: 38,880 units, Operator 1 leading with 4,720, and Machine 3 leading with 13,300. B better demonstrates the explicitly required performer highlighting: its rendered Average Output and Total Output cells show Operator 1 in green and Operator 4 in red, whereas A's corresponding cells show no highlights. Four charts are counted in each workbook, but full dashboard compliance cannot be confirmed from the supplied evidence.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Dashboard rendered pages or chart definitions verifying the required chart types, data sources and four-quadrant arrangement for both submissions.
- Native structured-table, PivotTable and conditional-formatting definitions, including formatting coverage for future weeks.
- Actual workbook filenames/titles.
第 2 次 · Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代 更好
A：Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 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 reproduce the Week 1 inputs correctly, retain fixed assignments across 48 weeks, calculate weekly averages/totals, and compute correct Week 1 KPIs, including 38,880 units, Operator 1 at 4,720, and Machine 3 at 13,300. A better demonstrates the required performance highlighting: its rendered Average Output and Total Output cells mark Operator 1 green and Operator 4 red; B’s corresponding cells show no highlighting. Four charts are reported in each workbook, but full completion cannot be verified from the available evidence.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Dashboard renders or chart definitions confirming the required bar/pie chart types and four-quadrant arrangement.
- Native PivotTable definitions and source connections; only worksheet cells and summaries were shown.
- B’s conditional-formatting rules, needed to distinguish missing or ineffective formatting from a rendering limitation.
- Submitted workbook filenames/titles confirming 'Dashboard Output'.
Claude Opus 5.5 的两次判断
第 1 次 · Claude Opus 5.5 第 2 代 更好
A：DeepSeek Flash 初代
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 core structure. Each has an 'Operator Output Data' sheet with 432 rows (Weeks 1–48 × 9 operators). Week 1 values match the input, and every operator keeps a fixed machine and shift. Average and Total Output use formulas in J and K. Each has a 'Dashboard' sheet with 4 charts, four pivot-style tables (operator, machine, shift average, YTD leaderboard sorted descending) and From/To week list validation. Both show correct Week 1 KPIs: 38,880 total; Operator 1 at 4,720; Machine 3 at 13,300; 4,320 per operator; Day 58.4% and Night 41.6%.
The decisive difference is the required conditional formatting. In B's render, the top and bottom performers are highlighted in both the Average and Total columns: green for Operator 1 (944.0 / 4,720) and red for Operator 4 (760.0 / 3,800). In A's render, the Week 1 values appear in plain formatting with no top/bottom highlighting. A's dashboard text claims green/red highlighting exists, but the visible evidence does not support it.
B also adds list validation on the Week, Operator, Machine and Shift columns. Its KPI table is cleaner (KPI | Value | Basis), and it includes self-checks. A's KPI layout is awkward: the Result column shows '—' while the numbers sit in a separate 'Units / %' column. However, A's KPI table is literally fixed to Week 1, whereas B's follows the week selection and defaults to Week 1. That is a minor deviation compared with A's apparently missing conditional formatting.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard pages for either submission (chart types, 2x2 quadrant arrangement, KPI number formatting)
- Conditional formatting rule definitions for either file (A's render shows none)
- Pivot cache/definition parts confirming the pivot areas are genuine PivotTables
- Output 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：DeepSeek Flash 初代
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 have the same core structure. Each has 432 rows (48 weeks × 9 operators) with fixed machine and shift assignments. Week 1 values match the input file. Average and Total Output are formula-driven, using IF(COUNT…)/AVERAGE and SUM. Each Dashboard has Start/End (From/To) week drop-downs fed by a 48-week list and four pivot-style tables (operator, machine, shift average and a descending YTD leaderboard). Each reports chart_count = 4 and correct Week 1 KPIs: 38,880 total units, Operator 1 at 4,720, Machine 3 at 13,300, 4,320 average per operator and a 58.4%/41.6% Day/Night split. The decisive difference is the required conditional formatting on Average and Total Output. A's rendered data sheet clearly shows it working: Operator 1 (944.0 / 4,720) is highlighted green and Operator 4 (760.0 / 3,800) red. B's rendered data sheet shows no top/bottom highlighting on those same cells, so B's dashboard note promising green/red highlighting is unsupported by the visible output. A also adds useful robustness: list validation on the Week, Operator, Machine and Shift columns, a direct 'Week #' page filter on each pivot in addition to the selection-driven filter, and reconciliation checks confirming totals agree and Day% + Night% = 100%. B's literally fixed 'Week 1 KPI' table is a small plus. A's KPI table defaults to Week 1 and follows the selection, which is still compliant. That does not offset B's apparently missing required highlighting.
裁判指出未能看到的材料：
- Rendered Dashboard sheet for either submission, so the 2×2 quadrant chart layout, chart types/titles and percent formatting cannot be visually confirmed
- Workbook file names, to confirm the title 'Dashboard Output'
- Conditional formatting rule definitions for both files; B's rules may exist but fail in the renderer
- Explicit confirmation of pivot cache/PivotTable parts; layouts look like real PivotTables in both
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。