{ "evaluation_id": "EVAL-20260318-164546", "question_id": "EVAL-20260318-164546", "question_text": "A startup has 3 engineers, $50,000 monthly budget, and 90 days to launch an MVP. They need to build: user authentication, a REST API with 12 endpoints, a React dashboard, a PostgreSQL database, CI/CD pipeline, and basic monitoring.\n\nRound 1 — Initial Plan: Create a sprint plan. Allocate engineers to tasks. Estimate completion dates. Identify the critical path.\n\nRound 2 — Day 30 Reality Check: Engineer #2 quits. The authentication system took twice as long as estimated. 4 of 12 API endpoints are done. The React dashboard has not started. You now have 2 engineers and 60 days. Revise the entire plan. What do you cut? What do you keep? What changes architecturally?\n\nRound 3 — Day 60 Optimization: A competitor launches a similar product. Your CEO wants to launch in 15 days, not 30. You have 2 engineers, $20,000 remaining budget, and a half-finished product. The API has 8/12 endpoints, the dashboard is 40% done, CI/CD is not set up. Design the fastest possible path to a launchable MVP. What is the minimum viable version of each component? What can be faked, deferred, or replaced with a third-party service?\n\nAfter all 3 rounds: What meta-principle did you use to make cuts in each round? How did your optimization strategy change as constraints tightened? What would a fourth round look like if the timeline compressed to 7 days?", "category": "code", "timestamp": "2026-03-18T16:45:46.498Z", "display_date": "Mar 18, 2026", "winner": { "name": "MiniMax M2.7", "provider": "openrouter", "score": 7.44 }, "avg_score": 6.812857, "matrix_size": 49, "models_used": [ { "id": "minimax_m21", "name": "MiniMax M2.1", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "minimax_m2", "name": "MiniMax M2", "provider": "MiniMax" }, { "id": "minimax_m1", "name": "MiniMax M1", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "minimax_01", "name": "MiniMax-01", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "judge_claude_sonnet", "name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "judge_gpt54", "name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "minimax_m27", "name": "MiniMax M2.7", "provider": "openrouter" } ], "rankings": { "minimax_m27": { "display_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.44, "score_count": 7, "min_score": 4.4, "max_score": 8.95, "rank": 1 }, "judge_gpt54": { "display_name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.44, "score_count": 7, "min_score": 5.55, "max_score": 9.55, "rank": 2 }, "minimax_m1": { "display_name": "MiniMax M1", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.31, "score_count": 7, "min_score": 4.4, "max_score": 9, "rank": 3 }, "judge_claude_sonnet": { "display_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 6.76, "score_count": 7, "min_score": 3.8, "max_score": 9, "rank": 4 }, "minimax_01": { "display_name": "MiniMax-01", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 6.56, "score_count": 7, "min_score": 6, "max_score": 7.2, "rank": 5 }, "minimax_m2": { "display_name": "MiniMax M2", "provider": "MiniMax", "average_score": 6.19, "score_count": 7, "min_score": 3.85, "max_score": 8.6, "rank": 6 }, "minimax_m21": { "display_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 5.99, "score_count": 7, "min_score": 3.45, "max_score": 7.85, "rank": 7 } }, "judgments": [ { "judge_key": "minimax_m27", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "respondent_key": "minimax_m21", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "weighted_score": 5.25, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates excellent analysis with sound reasoning and clear structure for Round 1 and the beginning of Round 2, but is severely incomplete—it cuts off mid-sentence in Round 2 and entirely omits Round 3 and the critical meta-principle synthesis that answers the core question about optimization strategy evolution." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m27", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "respondent_key": "minimax_m2", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2", "weighted_score": 6.35, "brief_justification": "The response provides a well-structured and practical Round 1 plan with good sprint organization, but is severely incomplete—it cuts off mid-Round 2, completely omits Round 3 and the meta-analysis questions, leaving critical portions unanswered despite the question explicitly requesting them all." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m27", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "respondent_key": "minimax_m1", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M1", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive three-round plan with accurate resource calculations, logical architectural pivots, and actionable technology choices. Strong use of tables and structured formatting. Meta-principles clearly articulated. Minor gap: Round 4 optimization mentioned but not fully detailed." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m27", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "respondent_key": "minimax_01", "respondent_name": "MiniMax-01", "weighted_score": 6.85, "brief_justification": "The response provides a well-structured three-round analysis with good clarity and reasonable technical recommendations. However, it lacks specific tool choices, exact endpoint priorities, and concrete actionable details that would make it truly useful for a startup in crisis. The fourth round is particularly thin on specifics." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m27", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "respondent_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.45, "brief_justification": "Response is well-structured with excellent tables, diagrams, and clear rationale for Round 1 and Round 2 decisions, showing strong technical judgment in adopting managed services and making strategic cuts. However, it is incomplete—Round 3 (15-day optimization), the meta-principle analysis, and Round 4 (7-day scenario) are not addressed, limiting overall completeness and utility despite high clarity and depth in the sections provided." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m27", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "respondent_key": "judge_gpt54", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 6.7, "brief_justification": "The response is excellently structured with clear Round 1 and Round 2 plans including specific timelines, team allocations, and architectural recommendations. However, it is severely incomplete—the response cuts off mid-sentence during Round 2, leaving Round 3, the meta-principle analysis, and Round 4 completely unaddressed. The material that exists shows sound judgment (using Auth0/Supabase, Vercel, deferring CI/CD), but cannot be fully evaluated for the full scope requested." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "minimax_m27", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "weighted_score": 7.95, "brief_justification": "The response provides strong, actionable plans for Rounds 1-3 with logical technical recommendations and clear structure. However, it appears truncated—missing the complete meta-analysis section and the Round 4 scenario requested in the question. The core planning is solid but incomplete." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "minimax_m21", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "weighted_score": 5.2, "brief_justification": "Response provides detailed Round 1 planning but cuts off mid-Round 2, leaving Rounds 2-3 analysis and meta-principles completely unaddressed. The partial content is well-reasoned but the incomplete answer fails to address the core decision-making challenges posed in the scenario." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "minimax_m2", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2", "weighted_score": 4.75, "brief_justification": "Round 1 is well-structured with reasonable sprint planning and engineer allocation. Round 2 provides sensible cuts (CI/CD simplification, managed auth, deferring admin features). However, the response is incomplete—Round 2 ends abruptly, Round 3 is entirely missing, and the meta-principles/fourth round analysis are absent—leaving the evaluation incomplete." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "minimax_m1", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M1", "weighted_score": 8.05, "brief_justification": "The response provides a thorough, technically sound analysis across all three rounds with excellent use of tables and clear reasoning for architectural decisions. However, it appears truncated—Round 3's acceleration strategy is incomplete (missing Dashboard and CI/CD minimum viable versions), and the final meta-analysis section covering principles and Round 4 is entirely missing." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "minimax_01", "respondent_name": "MiniMax-01", "weighted_score": 7.2, "brief_justification": "The response provides well-structured plans for all three rounds with clear task allocation and reasonable cut/keep decisions. However, it lacks specificity (e.g., which API endpoints to prioritize), contains minor logical inconsistencies (referencing Engineer #2 after they quit), and the architectural suggestions remain generic. The meta-principles are sound but could be more actionable." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 5.9, "brief_justification": "Response provides reasonable Round 1-2 analysis but is incomplete - it abruptly cuts off mid-response before fully addressing Round 3 specifics (minimum viable versions, what to fake/defer) and the final meta-question about optimization principles. The analysis shows sound reasoning but lacks actionable detail for the most constrained scenario." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "judge_gpt54", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 6.7, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and shows logical planning for Round 1 and starts Round 2 well, but it is severely incomplete - it cuts off mid-sentence in Round 2, never addresses Round 3, and fails to answer the meta-principle questions at the end. The partial content is accurate and thoughtful, but the truncated response cannot be considered a complete answer." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m21", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "respondent_key": "minimax_m27", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "weighted_score": 8.95, "brief_justification": "Provides a well-reasoned, structured plan with accurate calculations and practical recommendations. Covers all three rounds with specific trade-offs and actionable decisions. Minor deduction for incomplete ending in Round 3 and slight overconfidence in timeline feasibility." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m21", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "respondent_key": "minimax_m2", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2", "weighted_score": 5.9, "brief_justification": "The response provides a solid Round 1 plan and reasonable Round 2 adjustments, but is severely incomplete - it abruptly cuts off mid-Round 2 and completely lacks Round 3, the meta-principles reflection, and Round 4 scenario. Only ~60% of the required content was delivered." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m21", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "respondent_key": "minimax_m1", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M1", "weighted_score": 5.85, "brief_justification": "Response provides reasonable technical analysis for Rounds 1-2 with sensible architectural tradeoffs, but is incomplete - Round 3 cuts off mid-sentence and the final meta-analysis questions are entirely unaddressed. The truncation significantly reduces practical value." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m21", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "respondent_key": "minimax_01", "respondent_name": "MiniMax-01", "weighted_score": 6.65, "brief_justification": "Response covers all three rounds with reasonable plans but lacks specific dates, budget allocation details, and concrete third-party service recommendations. The analysis is logical but surface-level, missing quantitative rigor in task estimates and resource allocation." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m21", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "respondent_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.5, "brief_justification": "Response shows strong analytical depth and clear communication with well-structured tables and diagrams, but is severely incomplete as it ends mid-sentence during Round 2, missing Round 3 entirely and the meta-analysis section." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m21", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "respondent_key": "judge_gpt54", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, well-structured response covering all three rounds with realistic triage decisions and actionable recommendations. Strong decision frameworks and architectural alternatives provide practical guidance." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m2", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2", "respondent_key": "minimax_m27", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "weighted_score": 7.95, "brief_justification": "Response provides logically sound, actionable plans across all three rounds with good technical reasoning. However, it appears truncated mid-sentence in Round 3 (the 'Full' defer section is incomplete), and the explicit fourth round (7-day) analysis is missing despite addressing the meta-principles well." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m2", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2", "respondent_key": "minimax_m21", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "weighted_score": 6.75, "brief_justification": "Response provides strong Round 1 analysis with detailed sprint planning and critical path identification, but is severely incomplete - it cuts off mid-Round 2 with no Round 3 or meta-principle discussion. Missing approximately half the required content significantly diminishes its practical value." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m2", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2", "respondent_key": "minimax_m1", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M1", "weighted_score": 7.65, "brief_justification": "Response shows strong technical judgment and strategic thinking, but is incomplete - cuts off mid-Round 3 and misses final meta-analysis questions. Clear structure and realistic solutions, though incomplete coverage reduces overall value." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m2", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2", "respondent_key": "minimax_01", "respondent_name": "MiniMax-01", "weighted_score": 6.4, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all three rounds with clear headings, but contains timeline math errors (Round 3 Days 61-75 vs 15-day deadline), references a departed engineer in reallocation, and provides only surface-level technical recommendations without specific tool choices or prioritization rationale." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m2", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2", "respondent_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.7, "brief_justification": "Response excellently addresses Rounds 1 and 2 with clear tables, logical reasoning, and practical trade-offs. However, it completely omits Round 3 (Day 60 optimization with 15-day deadline), the meta-principle question, and the fourth round 7-day scenario—leaving the evaluation incomplete." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m2", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2", "respondent_key": "judge_gpt54", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 5.55, "brief_justification": "Response provides excellent Round 1 planning but is severely incomplete - it cuts off mid-Round 2 and completely omits Round 3, the meta-principles analysis, and the Round 4 (7-day) scenario. The partial content shows sound reasoning but fails to deliver a complete answer to the multi-round question." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m1", "judge_name": "MiniMax M1", "respondent_key": "minimax_m27", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "weighted_score": 5.9, "brief_justification": "Response provides solid tactical advice for Rounds 1-3 with good tables and allocations, but is incomplete - Round 3 ends mid-sentence and the critical meta-analysis section (meta-principles, optimization strategy evolution, and 4th round with 7-day timeline) is entirely missing, significantly reducing overall usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m1", "judge_name": "MiniMax M1", "respondent_key": "minimax_m21", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "weighted_score": 5.75, "brief_justification": "The response provides a thorough and well-reasoned Round 1 plan with sound sprint architecture and critical path analysis, but it is severely incomplete—it cuts off mid-Round 2 and entirely omits Round 3 and the meta-principle summary, making it impossible to evaluate the full crisis response strategy." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m1", "judge_name": "MiniMax M1", "respondent_key": "minimax_m2", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2", "weighted_score": 6.45, "brief_justification": "Strong detailed planning for Rounds 1-2 with practical recommendations (managed auth, Supabase, Vercel), but severely incomplete: Round 3 cuts off mid-sentence at 'Implement', doesn't address the 15-day launch specifics or what to fake/defer, and entirely omits the meta-principles question and the Round 4 (7-day) scenario." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m1", "judge_name": "MiniMax M1", "respondent_key": "minimax_01", "respondent_name": "MiniMax-01", "weighted_score": 6, "brief_justification": "Response covers all three rounds with reasonable prioritization logic but contains a critical contradiction (Engineer #2 assigned tasks after quitting), unclear timeline calculations in Round 3, and lacks depth in technical specifics and budget allocation details." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m1", "judge_name": "MiniMax M1", "respondent_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "The response provides well-structured, actionable plans across all three rounds with logical reasoning. It effectively uses tables and visual aids, correctly identifies critical paths and tradeoffs. Slightly less depth on Round 3's specific tactical questions (faking/deferring services) and the meta-principle could be more nuanced, but overall demonstrates strong constraint optimization thinking." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m1", "judge_name": "MiniMax M1", "respondent_key": "judge_gpt54", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 5.55, "brief_justification": "Response is severely incomplete - covers Round 1 fully and Round 2 partially, but ends abruptly mid-sentence at 'Replace custom authentication' without addressing Round 3's critical 15-day launch scenario. The partial content shows good structure and reasonable advice, but fails to complete the requested analysis." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_01", "judge_name": "MiniMax-01", "respondent_key": "minimax_m27", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The response provides a detailed and logical plan for each round with clear justifications for decisions, though it could include more specific reasoning for the architectural choices and trade-offs." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_01", "judge_name": "MiniMax-01", "respondent_key": "minimax_m21", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "weighted_score": 7.85, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates strong clarity and logical reasoning, with a detailed plan and critical path analysis. However, it lacks full coverage of the architectural changes needed in Round 2 and does not fully address the MVP optimization in Round 3, such as leveraging third-party services or cutting non-essential features. The meta-principle is well-articulated but not fully demonstrated in the specific actions proposed." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_01", "judge_name": "MiniMax-01", "respondent_key": "minimax_m2", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "The response is factually accurate, well-structured, and provides a clear plan with actionable steps. However, it could benefit from deeper analysis of trade-offs and risks, especially in the architectural changes section." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_01", "judge_name": "MiniMax-01", "respondent_key": "minimax_m1", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M1", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "The response is factually accurate, well-structured, and provides a detailed plan for each round with clear reasoning for decisions. However, it could include more exploration of potential risks or alternative strategies." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_01", "judge_name": "MiniMax-01", "respondent_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "The response is factually accurate, well-structured, and provides a clear and actionable plan with thoughtful prioritization. However, it could delve deeper into alternative strategies for handling the frontend workload and the trade-offs of adopting managed services." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_01", "judge_name": "MiniMax-01", "respondent_key": "judge_gpt54", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "The response is highly detailed, logically structured, and demonstrates a strong understanding of the problem. It covers the MVP requirements comprehensively but could benefit from more explicit justification for specific cuts and replacements." }, { "judge_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "minimax_m27", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "weighted_score": 8.15, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates strong practical engineering judgment with well-structured tables, realistic capacity calculations, and smart architectural pivots (e.g., switching to Auth0, faking endpoints with seed data). However, the response appears truncated mid-sentence in Round 3 and never completes the meta-analysis section requested after all 3 rounds, which significantly impacts completeness scores." }, { "judge_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "minimax_m21", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "weighted_score": 7.65, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured, technically sound, and demonstrates strong planning methodology through Rounds 1 and 2, but appears to be cut off mid-sentence before completing Round 2 and never addresses Rounds 3 or the meta-analysis questions, making it significantly incomplete despite its high quality where present." }, { "judge_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "minimax_m2", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2", "weighted_score": 7.45, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates strong technical knowledge and sound decision-making in Rounds 1 and 2, with well-structured sprint plans, clear engineer allocation, and thoughtful architectural pivots. However, the response appears to be cut off mid-sentence in Round 2 and never completes Rounds 3 or the meta-analysis section, leaving significant portions of the question unanswered, which substantially impacts completeness and usefulness scores." }, { "judge_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "minimax_m1", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M1", "weighted_score": 7.6, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and technically sound through Rounds 1 and 2, with good architectural pivots (Supabase, Firebase Auth) and clear trade-off reasoning. However, the response appears truncated—Round 3 is incomplete, and the meta-analysis section (comparing optimization strategies across rounds, the fourth-round scenario, and the meta-principle reflection) is entirely missing, significantly reducing completeness and depth scores." }, { "judge_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "minimax_01", "respondent_name": "MiniMax-01", "weighted_score": 6.65, "brief_justification": "The response provides a structured and readable plan across all three rounds with reasonable decisions, but lacks depth in critical areas—such as specific budget allocation, concrete reasoning for which API endpoints to cut, and meaningful architectural trade-offs. The meta-analysis at the end is surface-level, and the fourth-round scenario is underdeveloped compared to what the question demands." }, { "judge_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "judge_gpt54", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates strong technical planning with well-structured sprint breakdowns, realistic critical path analysis, and sound decision frameworks for Round 2 triage. However, the response appears to be cut off mid-Round 2 and never completes Rounds 2, 3, or the meta-analysis section, which significantly impacts completeness despite the high quality of what was delivered." }, { "judge_key": "judge_gpt54", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "minimax_m27", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.7", "weighted_score": 4.4, "brief_justification": "The response has a reasonable structure and some pragmatic recommendations, but it is incomplete: Round 3 is truncated, and the required meta-principle, optimization changes, and 7-day Round 4 are missing. It also contains questionable planning math/timeline inconsistencies and under-justified estimates, reducing correctness and practical usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "judge_gpt54", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "minimax_m21", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.1", "weighted_score": 3.45, "brief_justification": "The response is well-written and shows some reasonable project-management thinking in Round 1, but it is incomplete: it cuts off midway through Round 2 and does not answer Round 3 or the final meta-principle questions. Several estimates and assumptions are also questionable or unsupported, limiting practical usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "judge_gpt54", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "minimax_m2", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2", "weighted_score": 3.85, "brief_justification": "The response starts with a plausible Round 1 plan and some sensible Round 2 cuts, but it is incomplete: Round 2 is truncated, Round 3 and the required meta-principle analysis are missing. It also contains some inconsistencies, such as introducing a remaining budget figure not stated in the prompt and mixing auth endpoints into the 12-endpoint API scope without clear justification." }, { "judge_key": "judge_gpt54", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "minimax_m1", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M1", "weighted_score": 4.4, "brief_justification": "The response is clearly structured and offers some reasonable replanning ideas, but it is incomplete: Round 3 is cut off, the required post-round meta-principle and 7-day fourth-round analysis are missing, and some estimates/resource math and architectural choices are inconsistent or weakly justified." }, { "judge_key": "judge_gpt54", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "minimax_01", "respondent_name": "MiniMax-01", "weighted_score": 6.2, "brief_justification": "The response is organized and broadly sensible, but it stays generic, has timeline/math inconsistencies, and misses key startup-planning specifics like budget usage, explicit sprint breakdowns, concrete endpoint/dashboard prioritization, and a sharper critical-path revision under each round. It is readable and directionally helpful, but not detailed enough for high-confidence execution." }, { "judge_key": "judge_gpt54", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "judge_claude_sonnet", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 3.8, "brief_justification": "The response is clearly structured and offers a plausible Round 1 and partial Round 2, but it is incomplete: it stops mid-thought, omits Round 3 entirely, and does not answer the required meta-principle or 7-day fourth-round scenario. Some planning assumptions are reasonable, but the missing revisions, dates, and final optimization strategy make it only marginally useful." } ], "meta": { "source": "The Multivac (app.themultivac.com)", "methodology": "10x10 blind peer matrix evaluation", "criteria": "correctness, completeness, clarity, depth, usefulness", "self_judgments": "excluded from rankings", "license": "Open data — cite as: The Multivac (2026)" } }