{ "evaluation_id": "EVAL-20260402-194814", "question_id": "ANALYSIS-016", "question_text": "Your company depends on a single supplier in Taiwan for a critical component. 70% of revenue depends on this component. Lead time is 12 weeks. The supplier has a 2% annual probability of major disruption (natural disaster, geopolitics). (1) Calculate the expected annual cost of this risk given $100M revenue. (2) A second supplier in Mexico can provide the same component at 15% higher cost. Should you dual-source? (3) Design a risk mitigation strategy with cost-benefit analysis.", "category": "analysis", "timestamp": "2026-04-02T19:48:14.912Z", "display_date": "Apr 02, 2026", "winner": { "name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "score": 8.69 }, "avg_score": 7.493, "matrix_size": 88, "models_used": [ { "id": "gpt_oss_120b", "name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI" }, { "id": "claude_opus_46", "name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "deepseek_v4", "name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "mimo_v2_flash", "name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi" }, { "id": "claude_sonnet_46", "name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "grok_420", "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gemini_3_flash", "name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "provider": "Google" }, { "id": "minimax_m25", "name": "MiniMax M2.5", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gemini_31_pro", "name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gpt_5_4", "name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter" } ], "rankings": { "gpt_5_4": { "display_name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.69, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 7.95, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 1 }, "gemini_3_flash": { "display_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "provider": "Google", "average_score": 8.36, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 7.75, "max_score": 9, "rank": 2 }, "mimo_v2_flash": { "display_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi", "average_score": 8.19, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.7, "max_score": 9.6, "rank": 3 }, "grok_420": { "display_name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.16, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.5, "max_score": 9.55, "rank": 4 }, "minimax_m25": { "display_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.05, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.1, "max_score": 9.55, "rank": 5 }, "claude_opus_46": { "display_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.92, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.35, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 6 }, "deepseek_v4": { "display_name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.87, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 6.15, "max_score": 9, "rank": 7 }, "gpt_oss_120b": { "display_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI", "average_score": 7.67, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 5.55, "max_score": 9.55, "rank": 8 }, "claude_sonnet_46": { "display_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 6.98, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 4.15, "max_score": 9.35, "rank": 9 }, "gemini_31_pro": { "display_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 3.04, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 1.65, "max_score": 5.75, "rank": 10 } }, "judgments": [ { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.75, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough coverage, clear structure, insightful tiered strategy, and practical recommendations." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.65, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 6.15, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 4.7, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 6.7, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 6.95, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.5, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 6.95, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 1.65, "brief_justification": "The response is severely incomplete - it cuts off mid-sentence in Part 1 and never addresses Parts 2 or 3. No calculations are provided, no dual-sourcing analysis is given, and no risk mitigation strategy is designed. While the opening structure suggests a reasonable approach, virtually no substantive content is delivered." }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.1, "brief_justification": "The analysis is well-structured and practically useful, with a layered mitigation strategy that demonstrates real-world thinking. However, the expected annual cost calculation in (1) has a significant simplification issue: it assumes disruption lasts exactly 12 weeks (the lead time) and that all revenue during that period is lost, without considering partial mitigation, demand elasticity, or that disruption duration and severity are distributions, not point estimates. The 2% probability also lik" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 7.55, "brief_justification": "The basic EAV calculation in (1) is correct but overly simplistic—it doesn't account for duration of disruption, partial revenue loss, recovery costs, or tail-risk considerations. The 2% probability leading to a full $70M loss is an extreme assumption that isn't questioned. In (2), the analysis correctly identifies the tradeoff but the 50/50 split cost calculation is reasonable though it doesn't explore different split ratios until part (3). The dual-disruption probability calculation assumes in" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 7.3, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and clearly communicated, with a logical framework. However, Part 1 has a significant issue: the expected annual cost calculation assumes 100% of the dependent revenue is lost for the entire year upon disruption, which is unrealistic given a 12-week lead time (should be ~23% of annual revenue at risk, yielding ~$322k expected loss, not $1.4M). This error propagates into Parts 2 and 3, affecting the dual-sourcing comparison. The dual-sourcing analysis introduces a " }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.15, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates impressive analytical depth and structured thinking, but has notable correctness issues. The decomposition of the 2% probability into sub-scenarios is creative but arbitrary and not well-justified — the probabilities sum to 3.7%, not 2%. The loss model includes reasonable components but many figures are assumed without clear basis (e.g., 10% customer attrition, penalty clauses). The risk-adjusted cost adding a 'volatility premium' and 'strategic option value destroyed' " }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.5, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally well-structured, thorough, and practically useful. The expected annual cost calculation is reasonable but makes assumptions (using gross margin loss rather than full revenue loss) that could be debated - some would argue the full revenue impact ($70M × 2% = $1.4M) is the more straightforward interpretation, and the 3-month vs full-year disruption duration assumption isn't explicitly justified. The dual-sourcing analysis is strong, correctly noting that naive EV comp" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 6.95, "brief_justification": "The basic expected loss calculation is correct ($324k). However, the dual-sourcing analysis has issues: assuming a 50/50 split with the full 15% premium on half the volume is one approach, but the response doesn't explore more realistic split ratios (e.g., 80/20 or 90/10) which would dramatically change the cost-benefit. The break-even analysis is sound but the conclusion that dual-sourcing costs $5.25M annually overstates the case since you wouldn't necessarily split 50/50. The tiered mitigatio" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.95, "brief_justification": "The analysis is well-structured, logically sound, and demonstrates strong strategic thinking. The expected annual cost calculation is correct ($323k). The dual-sourcing recommendation is well-justified with TCO and BCP framing. The 80/20 hybrid model is practical and the cost-benefit analysis is detailed with reasonable assumptions. The final recommendation correctly notes that the statistical expected loss understates the true risk (tail risk/company-killer framing), which shows sophisticated r" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 7.95, "brief_justification": "The analysis is well-structured and clearly communicated. The core expected loss calculation ($323k) is reasonable given stated assumptions, though it likely underestimates true risk by not accounting for margin vs revenue (the $16.15M is revenue at risk, not profit), tail risk beyond expected value, or longer disruption scenarios (geopolitical disruptions could last far longer than 12 weeks). The dual-sourcing analysis incorrectly assumes the full 15% premium applies to all $70M of component co" }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 1.65, "brief_justification": "The response is incomplete and cuts off before providing the calculation, recommendation, or mitigation strategy. It shows some awareness of the setup but does not answer the three requested parts." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.35, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and analytically rich, but it relies heavily on unsupported assumptions and does not clearly answer the core questions with a grounded recommendation. The expected annual cost and dual-sourcing economics are plausible but not well anchored to the data provided." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 6.95, "brief_justification": "Clear and reasonably structured, with useful framing of tradeoffs. However, it equates revenue at risk with cost/loss without discussing margin or disruption duration, assumes full $70M impact from any disruption, and the dual-source math is simplistic/inconsistent because revenue is treated as component cost basis and simultaneous-failure probability is likely not the right residual-risk model. Mitigation options are helpful but the cost-benefit analysis rests on shaky assumptions." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 6.7, "brief_justification": "Clear structure and useful framework, but key conclusions rely on unstated assumptions about component cost and risk reduction. The expected loss estimate is plausible only under a full-year loss assumption, while the answer ignores disruption duration and margin vs revenue, making the dual-sourcing recommendation insufficiently grounded." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 5.35, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and thoughtful, but it invents unsupported assumptions, changes the given 2% risk into a new distribution, and leaves part 3 unfinished. The core expected-loss and dual-source recommendation are therefore not reliably grounded in the prompt." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 6.5, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and thoughtful, but key calculations rely on unstated/unsupported assumptions (gross margin, component share of COGS, ramp rates), leading to questionable expected-loss and dual-sourcing economics. Good scenario framing and mitigation ideas, but numerical conclusions are not well grounded in the data given." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 5.55, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and partially reasoned, but it makes unsupported assumptions that materially affect the answer: it treats revenue as component cost, assumes a 12-week full outage with total lost revenue, and assumes backup sourcing cost equals full 15% premium on reserved volume. The mitigation section is incomplete/truncated and cost-benefit analysis is not fully developed." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 7.95, "brief_justification": "Clear, structured, and mostly sound. The expected loss calculation is reasonable under stated assumptions, and the mitigation plan is practical. However, the dual-source recommendation relies on unstated assumptions about Mexico lead time, ramp capacity, and component cost share, so some quantitative conclusions are speculative." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 6.1, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and reasonably thorough, but it makes major unsupported assumptions about component cost equaling revenue exposure, overstates dual-source benefits, and the cost-benefit analysis is therefore materially flawed." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 5.75, "brief_justification": "Incomplete response with missing calculations and analysis." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Detailed and accurate analysis with comprehensive risk modeling and practical recommendations." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, accurate, and actionable with clear structure." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Detailed, accurate, and actionable with thorough analysis." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate and thorough analysis with clear structure and actionable insights." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate, thorough, and actionable with excellent clarity and depth." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate, thorough, and actionable with clear structure." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate, thorough, and actionable with excellent strategic depth." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, accurate, and actionable with clear structure." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 3.75, "brief_justification": "The response is incomplete and cuts off mid-sentence. It fails to provide the calculated expected cost, a definitive recommendation on dual-sourcing, or the required risk mitigation strategy and cost-benefit analysis." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.75, "brief_justification": "Strong quantitative analysis with realistic cost modeling. Correctly identifies expected value limitations for tail risks. Slightly overestimates secondary costs (e.g., brand damage) but provides actionable decision matrix." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "Strong, actionable analysis with clear math and strategic framing. Minor deduction for not explicitly stating the missing variable (annual component spend C) needed for a definitive dual-sourcing decision." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations and strong strategic analysis, though the dual-source cost calculation assumes a specific split without stating it explicitly." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "Strong analytical depth and practical frameworks, though the '2% probability' was modified without explicit justification." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.35, "brief_justification": "Excellent response. Correctly calculates expected loss, provides nuanced dual-sourcing recommendation with quantitative trade-offs, and designs a comprehensive mitigation strategy with cost-benefit analysis. Assumptions are clearly stated and sensitivity analysis is included." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "The response is highly accurate, providing a correct expected loss calculation and a nuanced, actionable mitigation strategy. The cost-benefit analysis is detailed and insightful, weighing statistical cost against existential risk." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 8.75, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough coverage, clear structure, insightful hybrid strategy, and practical recommendations." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 2.45, "brief_justification": "The response is severely incomplete - it cuts off mid-sentence during Part 1 without completing any of the three requested analyses. While the introduction and setup appear reasonable, no actual calculations, recommendations, or strategy were delivered, making the response essentially useless for the user's needs." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.75, "brief_justification": "Excellent multi-layered analysis that goes well beyond simple expected value calculation. The response correctly identifies the misleading nature of EAC for low-probability/high-impact risks, introduces VaR/CVaR thinking, and provides scenario analysis across multiple dual-sourcing strategies. The cost breakdown per disruption event is thorough and realistic. Minor issues: the gross margin assumption (60%) and component cost assumptions (~30% of COGS) are stated but not derived from given data, " }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and methodologically sound. The expected cost calculation is correct and clearly explained. The dual-sourcing analysis is nuanced, correctly noting that the decision depends on component spend levels rather than giving a blanket answer. The risk mitigation strategy is practical and layered. Minor weaknesses: the analysis assumes disruption always lasts exactly 12 weeks (the lead time), which may underestimate tail risk; it doesn't account for fixed costs, lost cus" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "Strong structured response with accurate expected cost calculation ($1.4M), solid dual-sourcing analysis with realistic cost figures, and a well-reasoned multi-option mitigation strategy. The probability calculation for simultaneous dual-supplier failure (0.04%) is mathematically correct but assumes full independence which deserves more nuance. The hybrid recommendation is practical. Minor issue: the 15% premium calculation should be on component cost, not revenue, but the framework is sound. Ov" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.1, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and practical. The Part 1 expected cost calculation is correct at $1.4M. Part 2's dual-sourcing analysis is reasonable but makes an assumption about component cost being 30% of revenue that isn't given in the problem—this assumption is stated but could be more clearly flagged as critical to the conclusion. The 'not financially justified' verdict is defensible but oversimplified since it ignores tail risk, correlation benefits, and the catastrophic nature of a $70M" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and methodologically sound. The expected annual cost calculation is correct and includes helpful sensitivity analysis. The dual-sourcing analysis is practical with realistic split options. The cost-benefit table has a minor inconsistency (the 30% Mexico row shows net value as -0.65 but earlier calls it positive), and the safety stock benefit calculation seems off (40% risk reduction from inventory alone seems high). Despite these minor issues, the response provide" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 6.95, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and clearly presented, but has significant issues. The cost calculation for dual-sourcing assumes the $70M is the component cost (conflating revenue with component cost), which is a logical error - the 15% premium should apply to the component's purchase cost, not revenue. The break-even analysis is therefore flawed. The safety stock cost-benefit ratio calculation appears inverted (showing <1 as bad when it should show benefit>cost). The response cuts off mid-tabl" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.1, "brief_justification": "Strong practical analysis with clear structure. The expected cost calculation is correct and well-explained. The 80/20 dual-sourcing strategy is actionable and the cost-benefit framework is solid. Minor issues: the COGS assumption (40% of COGS) is introduced without basis and affects the cost calculation's credibility; the analysis could better address tail risks, recovery time variability, and the possibility of simultaneous disruptions. The final recommendation appropriately goes beyond pure E" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 8.15, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all three parts thoroughly. The expected cost calculation is reasonable but makes a key assumption (disruption = full 12-week revenue loss) without exploring alternatives like partial disruption or margin vs. revenue distinction. The dual-sourcing analysis correctly identifies the cost mismatch but oversimplifies by assuming Mexico supplier gets 100% volume at 15% premium on all $70M rather than marginal cost. The hybrid strategy is practical and well-r" }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 3.2, "brief_justification": "The response is incomplete, cutting off mid-sentence in part 1. It fails to calculate the expected annual cost, provide any numbers, or address parts 2 and 3 at all. While the introduction is clear, the lack of actual analysis makes it low value." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.8, "brief_justification": "Response provides thorough, well-structured analysis with scenario modeling and cost breakdowns, but includes some unsubstantiated assumptions (e.g., component spend at $14M, specific secondary costs, surge capacities) that reduce factual precision." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 7.95, "brief_justification": "The response provides a solid quantitative framework with clear calculations and practical recommendations, though it makes simplifying assumptions about disruption duration and full revenue loss that reduce factual precision." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 6.6, "brief_justification": "The response provides a structured analysis but contains errors in cost calculations (e.g., treating revenue as full cost impact, incorrect inventory carrying base) and overly simplistic assumptions about disruption probability and impact. It covers the three parts but lacks depth in quantifying total disruption costs beyond revenue and offers only marginal actionable insights." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 7.8, "brief_justification": "Response is logically structured and clear with good quantitative analysis, but makes several unsupported assumptions (e.g. 30% COGS ratio, inventory carrying cost, risk reduction levels) that reduce factual precision. Covers all three questions thoroughly with practical recommendations." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.55, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and clear with good depth in modeling scenarios and decision matrices, but it deviates from the given 2% probability by introducing unsubstantiated scenario breakdowns and inflated loss figures (e.g., adding permanent attrition and premiums not specified in the query), leading to overstated expected costs around $910k instead of a direct $1.4M calculation." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 7.8, "brief_justification": "Response is logically structured and uses reasonable assumptions, but the revenue loss calculation incorrectly assumes full revenue stoppage during disruption without considering margins or actual component cost impact; dual-sourcing analysis overlooks non-monetary risk factors like tail risks." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 7.8, "brief_justification": "The response provides a structured, logical analysis with reasonable assumptions and practical recommendations, though some figures (e.g., component as 40% of COGS) are arbitrary estimates and the loss calculation assumes full revenue loss without considering margins or partial recovery." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 7.35, "brief_justification": "The response is clear and well-structured with good practical recommendations, but has factual errors in risk calculation (confusing revenue loss with component cost and mishandling expected value) and unrealistic assumptions about simultaneous disruptions and inventory costs." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.3, "brief_justification": "Provides detailed calculations and analysis for all three parts, but the expected annual cost deviates from the straightforward interpretation of the problem, affecting factual accuracy. The answer is thorough, well-structured, and offers deep insight, though the recommendation on dual-sourcing could be clearer." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, covers all questions, clear structure, offers detailed scenario analysis and actionable mitigation steps." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, covers all parts, clear structure, offers detailed analysis and actionable options, minor simplifications in inventory cost estimation." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.15, "brief_justification": "Accurate core calculations and clear structure; some assumptions (e.g., component cost share) are unstated, affecting precision, but overall thorough, insightful, and actionable." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 4.15, "brief_justification": "The response introduces many unsupported assumptions and deviates from the simple expected loss calculation, leading to inaccurate results. It provides partial dual-sourcing analysis but lacks a clear recommendation and ends abruptly without a full mitigation strategy. While structured and detailed, the depth is misaligned with the question, reducing practical usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 6.85, "brief_justification": "The answer covers all parts and is clearly presented with tables and analysis, but the core expected cost calculation uses unsupported assumptions (full-year loss, margin) and deviates from the likely correct approach, reducing factual accuracy." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 7.75, "brief_justification": "Accurate core calculations and clear structure; offers actionable dual-sourcing plan, but relies on many unstated assumptions and could explore alternatives more thoroughly." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 8.65, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough coverage of all questions, clear structure with tables, insightful hybrid mitigation plan, and practical recommendations." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 3.65, "brief_justification": "The response is incomplete and cuts off mid-sentence in the first section. It fails to provide the calculation, the dual-sourcing recommendation, or the risk mitigation strategy requested." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptional. It goes beyond a simple mathematical calculation to provide a realistic business risk model, accounting for margin loss, recovery time, and long-term brand damage. The dual-sourcing analysis is highly practical, offering specific allocation strategies and a clear cost-benefit breakdown." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "The response provides a mathematically sound calculation of the expected annual cost and correctly identifies that the decision to dual-source depends on the total component spend (C), which was not provided in the prompt. It offers a sophisticated hybrid strategy (warm standby + safety stock) that reflects real-world supply chain best practices." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "The response provides a mathematically sound calculation of expected risk and a logical framework for dual-sourcing. It correctly identifies that the cost of dual-sourcing (the premium) exceeds the statistical expected loss, providing a nuanced 'Hybrid Approach' as a recommendation. It could have been slightly deeper by discussing the 'cost of goods sold' vs 'revenue' when calculating the 15% premium, but the logic remains robust." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9.6, "brief_justification": "The response provides a highly accurate financial calculation of risk and a sophisticated decision framework. It correctly identifies that the cost of mitigation via dual-sourcing exceeds the expected loss, and offers a superior alternative (Safety Stock + Qualification) with a clear cost-benefit analysis. The response cut off slightly at the very end, but the core content was fully delivered." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.35, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally thorough and professional. It correctly identifies that a simple expected value (EV) calculation is insufficient for supply chain risk and provides a sophisticated model including tail risk and indirect costs. The dual-sourcing analysis is practical, offering multiple scenarios (50/50, 80/20, and backup) rather than a binary answer. The formatting is excellent." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "The response is excellent. It correctly identifies that the expected value of the risk is lower than the cost of mitigation, but provides a sophisticated analysis of 'tail risk' and strategic sourcing (30/70 split) that makes the recommendation practical and professional. It makes reasonable assumptions for missing variables like margin and COGS percentage." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally well-structured and logically sound. It correctly identifies that the expected value of the risk ($324k) is significantly lower than the cost of the proposed mitigation ($5.25M), leading to a data-driven recommendation against dual-sourcing. The tiered strategy provides practical alternatives like safety stock and contractual flexibility which offer better cost-benefit ratios." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash", "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "respondent_key": "minimax_m25", "respondent_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "The response provides a highly professional and structured analysis. It correctly identifies that the financial cost of the risk is significantly lower than the cost of the proposed mitigation (dual-sourcing), a common trap in such problems. It offers a sophisticated hybrid strategy that balances cost and resilience." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 2.25, "brief_justification": "Response is incomplete and appears truncated mid-sentence. Only begins Part 1 calculation but provides no actual numbers, analysis, or conclusions. Parts 2 and 3 entirely missing. Not usable." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.1, "brief_justification": "Strong quantitative analysis with reasonable calculations. However, completeness suffers as the promised risk mitigation strategy (Part 3) is missing - only dual-sourcing options are covered. Clarity is good with structured presentation. Depth is decent with scenario modeling but limited on mitigation strategies beyond dual-sourcing. Usefulness reduced by not providing a clear recommendation or cost-benefit summary for the dual-source decision." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with correct math. Thoroughly addresses all three parts of the question. Well-structured with clear headings and formulas. Provides insightful break-even analysis and multiple mitigation options. Actionable recommendations with specific percentages and thresholds." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with correct expected cost ($1.4M) and dual-sourcing cost analysis ($5.25M). Well-structured response covering all three parts with clear headings and logical flow. Provides quantitative depth including safety stock analysis and probability calculations. Offers practical hybrid approach as actionable recommendation. Minor deduction for not being more definitive in the final recommendation." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.25, "brief_justification": "Mathematical calculations are correct and well-explained. Structure is clear with good use of tables. Analysis covers all three parts comprehensively. However, response ends abruptly, leaving final recommendation incomplete. Also, Mexico risk assumption is not explicitly quantified." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.2, "brief_justification": "Strong analytical framework with multi-scenario risk modeling and decision matrix. However, the response is incomplete (cuts off mid-sentence in Part 3) and contains calculation errors in probability decomposition (3.7% vs stated 2%). The dual-source analysis is thorough with good cost-benefit scenarios, but the incomplete response prevents full evaluation of the risk mitigation strategy." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive analysis with clear calculations, sensitivity tables, and practical dual-sourcing recommendation. Well-structured with explicit assumptions. Slight扣分 for unproven risk reduction percentages and assumed gross margin, but overall thorough and actionable." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 7.1, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and clear response covering all three questions. However, significant calculation errors exist: conflating revenue with component cost (the 15% premium should apply to COGS, not $70M revenue), incorrectly calculating 4-week safety stock as 33% of annual usage (should be ~8%), and assuming Mexico lead time without basis. These errors undermine the cost-benefit conclusions." }, { "judge_key": "minimax_m25", "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5", "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with clear logic. Well-structured response covering all three parts of the question. The 80/20 hybrid model is a thoughtful, actionable recommendation with reasonable cost-benefit analysis. Minor gaps include not fully exploring alternatives or implementation details." } ], "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)" } }