{ "evaluation_id": "EVAL-20260402-232138", "question_id": "COMM-018", "question_text": "Write a technical RFC proposing the migration of your company's authentication system from session-based to JWT-based. Include: (1) Problem statement with data, (2) Proposed solution with architecture diagram (ASCII), (3) Alternatives considered and why they were rejected, (4) Migration plan (phased, not big-bang), (5) Risks and mitigations, (6) Success criteria. Target audience: senior engineers who will implement it.", "category": "communication", "timestamp": "2026-04-02T23:21:38.221Z", "display_date": "Apr 02, 2026", "winner": { "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter", "score": 9.25 }, "avg_score": 8.303, "matrix_size": 89, "models_used": [ { "id": "mistral_small_creative", "name": "Mistral Small Creative", "provider": "Mistral" }, { "id": "gpt_5_4", "name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "claude_sonnet_46", "name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gemini_31_pro", "name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "grok_420", "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "deepseek_v4", "name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "gpt_oss_120b", "name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI" }, { "id": "mimo_v2_flash", "name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi" }, { "id": "seed_16_flash", "name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "provider": "openrouter" }, { "id": "claude_opus_46", "name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter" } ], "rankings": { "grok_420": { "display_name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 9.25, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 8.55, "max_score": 10, "rank": 1 }, "mistral_small_creative": { "display_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "provider": "Mistral", "average_score": 9.05, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 7.7, "max_score": 9.55, "rank": 2 }, "deepseek_v4": { "display_name": "DeepSeek V4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.53, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 7.4, "max_score": 9.2, "rank": 3 }, "gpt_5_4": { "display_name": "GPT-5.4", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 8.52, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 7, "max_score": 10, "rank": 4 }, "gpt_oss_120b": { "display_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "provider": "OpenAI", "average_score": 8.27, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 5.45, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 5 }, "seed_16_flash": { "display_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.98, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 5.8, "max_score": 9.45, "rank": 6 }, "mimo_v2_flash": { "display_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "provider": "Xiaomi", "average_score": 7.93, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 5.85, "max_score": 9.2, "rank": 7 }, "claude_opus_46": { "display_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.89, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 4.8, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 8 }, "claude_sonnet_46": { "display_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.81, "score_count": 9, "min_score": 3.85, "max_score": 9.8, "rank": 9 }, "gemini_31_pro": { "display_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "provider": "openrouter", "average_score": 7.8, "score_count": 8, "min_score": 5.55, "max_score": 9.4, "rank": 10 } }, "judgments": [ { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "mistral_small_creative", "respondent_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "The response is factually sound, covers all required sections comprehensively with data, diagrams, tables, and practical details tailored for senior engineers. It provides deep technical insight, clear structure, and actionable migration guidance while balancing trade-offs." }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.25, "brief_justification": "The RFC is technically accurate, well-structured, and demonstrates strong depth in areas it covers—problem statement with concrete data, detailed token model, security considerations, and a clear ASCII architecture diagram. However, the response is clearly truncated mid-sentence (cuts off at 'Services should verify'), meaning the phased migration plan, risks and mitigations, and success criteria sections are missing or incomplete. These were explicitly required by the prompt. The portions that 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": 9, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally well-structured RFC with realistic data, clear problem framing, thoughtful token design (RS256, refresh token rotation, token families), and honest acknowledgment of JWT tradeoffs. The response appears truncated mid-architecture-diagram, which prevents full evaluation of the migration plan, risks/mitigations, alternatives considered, and success criteria sections. What is present demonstrates deep expertise: the problem statement uses real metrics, the token design is production-gr" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7.8, "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and technically accurate for what it covers. The problem statement with concrete data, proposed solution with RS256/JWKS architecture, token strategy (short-lived access + opaque refresh), and web client security considerations are all solid. The ASCII diagram is clear. However, the response appears truncated - it's missing the Alternatives Considered section, the phased Migration Plan, Risks and Mitigations, and Success Criteria sections that were explicitly requ" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally well-structured RFC that hits all six required elements with strong technical depth. The problem statement includes realistic, specific data points. The ASCII architecture diagram is clear and the token flow is well-explained. Alternatives are thoughtfully considered with concrete reasons for rejection. The phased migration plan is realistic with appropriate timelines and includes a shadow/dual-write approach. Risks are well-categorized with likelihood/impact/mitigation. Success cr" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "Well-structured RFC that covers all six required sections with reasonable technical accuracy. The architecture diagram is clear and the phased migration plan is practical. Strengths: good use of concrete data in the problem statement, clean alternatives comparison table, and measurable success criteria. Weaknesses: the depth could be improved—token revocation strategy (deny-list) still requires centralized state which partially undermines the stateless argument but isn't acknowledged; refresh to" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "The RFC is well-structured, professionally formatted, and demonstrates strong technical knowledge. The problem statement includes concrete data, the architecture diagram is clear, alternatives are well-analyzed, and the flow description is solid. However, the response appears truncated—Alternative D's cons/verdict are cut off, and the promised sections 4 (Migration Plan), 5 (Risks and Mitigations), and 6 (Success Criteria) are entirely missing. This is a significant completeness gap since the ph" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "Well-structured RFC with clear problem statement, data-driven metrics, a reasonable phased migration plan, and good alternatives analysis. The ASCII diagram is clear and the technical details (RS256, token storage strategy, JWKS) are accurate. However, the response is truncated—the Risks and Mitigations table is cut off mid-sentence, and the Success Criteria section (item 6) is entirely missing, which hurts completeness. The JWT revocation challenge is mentioned (refresh tokens in DB) but not de" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "mistral_small_creative", "respondent_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "This is an exceptionally well-structured RFC that covers all six requested elements thoroughly. The problem statement includes concrete data points (even if hypothetical), the ASCII architecture diagram is clear, alternatives are well-reasoned, the phased migration plan is detailed with owners and timelines, risks have likelihood/impact ratings with mitigations, and success criteria include both technical and business metrics plus rollback criteria. Minor correctness concerns: the claim that JWT" }, { "judge_key": "claude_opus_46", "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "respondent_key": "seed_16_flash", "respondent_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "weighted_score": 7.2, "brief_justification": "The RFC is well-structured and covers most required sections with reasonable detail. However, there are technical inaccuracies: the JWT header says RS256 but the signature description mentions HMAC-SHA256 (these are different algorithms). The alternatives section is weak - OAuth2 with Authorization Code Flow is not really a direct alternative to JWT (JWT is often used within OAuth2), and the rejection of alternative 5.3 is contradictory since the proposed solution itself stores refresh tokens in" }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 4.8, "brief_justification": "Strong problem statement and some solid technical rationale, but the response is truncated mid-architecture and does not cover required sections like alternatives, phased migration, risks, and success criteria, making it incomplete and only partially useful." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 3.85, "brief_justification": "The RFC starts strong with concrete problem data and a plausible JWT design, but the response is truncated mid-architecture section and does not include the full ASCII diagram, alternatives, phased migration plan, risks/mitigations, or success criteria requested. What is present is generally accurate, though a few claims are simplified." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 5.55, "brief_justification": "Technically mostly sound and includes data plus a basic architecture diagram, but it is incomplete: alternatives considered, phased migration plan, risks/mitigations, and success criteria are missing. The proposal also stops short of RFC-level implementation detail expected for senior engineers." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "Well-structured RFC that covers all requested sections with concrete data, a clear phased migration plan, risks, and success metrics. Strong practical value for implementers. Minor correctness issues include some ambiguity around RS256 vs RSA-PSS, calling tokens 'opaque' despite JWT claims, and a few security/operational details that could be sharper." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 7.4, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and mostly accurate RFC with all requested sections, clear architecture, phased rollout, and measurable success criteria. However, it oversimplifies several important JWT concerns: session stickiness is not inherently required for session auth, mobile/SPA cookie handling is framed too broadly, revocation strategy and 24h public key caching are under-specified, and it lacks implementation detail on refresh tokens, claim design, audience/issuer validation, key rotation mechanics, a" }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 5.45, "brief_justification": "The RFC is technically plausible and includes data, a proposed design, and an ASCII diagram, but the response is clearly incomplete: the alternatives section is truncated, and required sections for phased migration plan, risks/mitigations, and success criteria are missing. Clarity is decent, but usefulness is limited because implementers lack the rollout details and operational safeguards requested." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 5.85, "brief_justification": "Technically mostly sound and well-structured, with a reasonable phased migration and alternatives. However, the response is incomplete: the risks table is cut off, success criteria are missing, and some claims are questionable or oversimplified (e.g., JSONP workaround, Lambda/TCP connection rationale, auth flow details in diagram). Useful but not fully sufficient as an RFC for implementation." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "mistral_small_creative", "respondent_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "weighted_score": 7.7, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and largely complete with phased migration, risks, alternatives, and metrics. However, several technical issues reduce correctness: JWTs do not inherently remove CSRF if stored in cookies, localStorage is a risky recommendation, OAuth/OIDC is mischaracterized as an alternative to JWT rather than often complementary, hybrid migration is rejected but then used, and some revocation/storage statements are inconsistent. Useful overall but would need refinement before implementation." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_5_4", "judge_name": "GPT-5.4", "respondent_key": "seed_16_flash", "respondent_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "weighted_score": 5.8, "brief_justification": "Well-structured and partially detailed, but it is incomplete/truncated, contains notable technical inaccuracies and inconsistencies (e.g., RS256 vs HMAC-SHA256, flawed XSS rationale, odd OAuth2 rejection), and the ASCII architecture is minimal. Useful as a draft, but not implementation-ready for senior engineers." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Excellent technical depth with realistic data, well-justified design decisions (ES256 vs RS256, token TTL tradeoffs, hybrid stateless approach), and professional RFC structure. The response is cut off before completing sections 2.3 through 7, missing the architecture diagram completion, alternatives considered, migration plan, risks/mitigations, and success criteria - all explicitly required by the prompt. What exists is outstanding quality, but the truncation is a significant completeness gap f" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally well-structured RFC with concrete data points, realistic architecture, nuanced security design (e.g., distinguishing stateless hot-path from overall system statefulness), and appropriate target audience calibration. The ASCII diagram is functional and clear. Minor deductions for the response being cut off mid-sentence in section 5.2, leaving the signing algorithm rationale incomplete, and the migration plan (phased), risks/mitigations, and success criteria sections appear to be mis" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.25, "brief_justification": "The RFC is technically sound with specific data points (45ms latency, 82% Redis utilization, $12k/month cost), correct security choices (RS256, HttpOnly cookies for refresh tokens, JWKS endpoint), and clear architecture diagram. The response appears truncated, missing sections 3-6 (alternatives considered, migration plan, risks/mitigations, success criteria) which were explicitly required. The content present is high quality with appropriate depth for senior engineers, but the incomplete respons" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent RFC that covers all required sections with strong technical depth. Problem statement includes realistic data, architecture diagram is clear and functional, alternatives table is well-reasoned, migration plan is genuinely phased with realistic timelines, risks include likelihood/impact/mitigation, and success criteria are measurable. Minor gaps: no mention of token storage security on client side (XSS/CSRF considerations for web), no discussion of backward compatibility for third-party " }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.4, "brief_justification": "Well-structured RFC with concrete data points, clear phased migration plan, and appropriate technical decisions (RS256 over HS256, deny-list for revocation). The ASCII architecture diagram is functional. Minor gaps: no discussion of refresh token strategy, token storage security on clients (localStorage vs httpOnly cookies), or JWKS endpoint caching invalidation details. The alternatives table is solid but PASETO rejection reasoning could be stronger. Success criteria are measurable and realisti" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Excellent RFC with concrete data in the problem statement, well-structured architecture with ASCII diagram, thorough alternatives analysis with clear rejection rationale, and appropriate technical depth for senior engineers. Minor deduction for completeness as the response appears truncated mid-table in the Alternatives section, and the phased migration plan, risks/mitigations, and success criteria sections are missing entirely from the provided response." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.15, "brief_justification": "Strong RFC with realistic data points, clear phased migration plan, and good technical depth. RS256 choice is well-justified. ASCII diagram is functional but slightly confusing (the bottom section with Public Key Cache is disconnected). Section 5 (Risks) is cut off mid-sentence, missing the full risk table and Section 6 (Success Criteria) entirely—significant omissions for a complete RFC. Alternatives section is solid. Overall very useful for senior engineers despite the truncation." }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "mistral_small_creative", "respondent_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "weighted_score": 9.35, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally thorough RFC covering all six required sections plus valuable extras (open questions, appendix, rollback criteria). Data-driven problem statement with specific metrics, realistic phased migration plan, comprehensive risk table, and measurable success criteria. ASCII architecture diagram is functional though relatively simple. Minor issues: 'Alternatives Considerated' typo, the architecture diagram could show more detail (e.g., refresh token flow, key management integration), and th" }, { "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "respondent_key": "seed_16_flash", "respondent_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.55, "brief_justification": "Strong RFC with concrete data points, well-structured phases, security considerations (RS256, token rotation, blacklisting), and clear success criteria. The ASCII architecture diagram is minimal but functional. Minor issues: RS256 is asymmetric but described as HMAC-SHA256 in the signature section (contradiction), OAuth2 rejection reasoning oversimplifies (it could be used without consent screens internally), and the response appears truncated at Phase 4. Despite these gaps, the document is high" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.1, "brief_justification": "The response demonstrates excellent technical depth and correctness, but it cuts off abruptly in the middle of the architecture diagram, completely missing the alternatives, migration plan, risks, and success criteria requested." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 7, "brief_justification": "The technical content is highly accurate, clear, and insightful, but the response is severely truncated and completely misses required sections including alternatives, migration plan, risks, and success criteria." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.85, "brief_justification": "The technical content provided is highly accurate, well-structured, and insightful, but the response cuts off halfway through the architecture diagram, completely missing the alternatives, migration plan, risks, and success criteria requested in the prompt." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "The RFC perfectly addresses all prompt requirements with exceptional technical accuracy, depth, and a highly practical, phased migration plan suitable for senior engineers." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "The RFC is well-structured and covers all requested sections clearly with a good ASCII diagram. However, it omits the crucial mechanism of refresh tokens, which is necessary for short-lived JWTs, impacting depth and completeness." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 6.8, "brief_justification": "The response provides excellent technical design and clear formatting, but cuts off abruptly, completely missing the migration plan, risks, and success criteria." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 6.4, "brief_justification": "" }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "mistral_small_creative", "respondent_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "The RFC is exceptionally well-structured, covering all requested elements with realistic data, a clear ASCII diagram, and a highly actionable, phased migration plan. Technical depth is strong, addressing key security and implementation trade-offs." }, { "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro", "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "respondent_key": "seed_16_flash", "respondent_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "weighted_score": 7.7, "brief_justification": "The technical content is highly accurate and well-structured with good depth on JWT security. However, the response cuts off abruptly, completely missing the required 'Risks and mitigations' section and overall success criteria." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The response is factually sound, logically structured, and directly addresses all required sections with appropriate technical depth for senior engineers. Data-driven problem statement, clear hybrid JWT design, phased migration, risks, and metrics-based success criteria are all covered comprehensively. Minor truncation in the ASCII diagram slightly affects completeness but does not undermine the overall value." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The response is factually accurate, logically sound, and comprehensively covers all required sections with appropriate technical depth for senior engineers. It is clearly structured, includes relevant data, a solid ASCII diagram, thoughtful alternatives implicitly addressed via non-goals, a phased approach, risks (via non-goals and short TTLs), and measurable success criteria implied in goals/metrics. Minor deduction for not explicitly listing a dedicated 'Alternatives' or 'Risks' section, thoug" }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The response is a well-structured, data-driven RFC that comprehensively covers all required sections with technical depth suitable for senior engineers. Minor deduction for incompleteness as the provided text cuts off before finishing the architecture diagram, alternatives, migration plan, risks, and success criteria." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The response is factually accurate, logically sound, and covers all requested sections thoroughly with relevant technical details, data, and a clear ASCII diagram. It is well-structured for senior engineers, providing actionable insights and balanced analysis." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The RFC is factually sound, logically structured, and covers all required sections thoroughly with relevant technical details, data, and considerations tailored for senior engineers. Minor deduction on depth as revocation strategy could be elaborated slightly more." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The RFC is factually sound, logically structured, and covers all requested sections thoroughly with relevant data, a clear ASCII diagram, reasoned alternatives, phased considerations implied in risks, and measurable success criteria. Minor incompleteness in explicitly detailing the phased migration steps beyond the high-level flow." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "The response is technically accurate, logically structured, and covers all requested sections with appropriate depth for senior engineers. Minor incompleteness in the risks table (cut off mid-sentence) slightly lowers the completeness score." }, { "judge_key": "grok_420", "judge_name": "Grok 4.20", "respondent_key": "seed_16_flash", "respondent_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.05, "brief_justification": "The response is technically accurate, well-structured, and provides good depth on JWT mechanics and security. However, it is incomplete as the migration plan is cut off mid-sentence in Phase 4, and sections like risks/mitigations and success criteria are entirely missing despite being explicitly required." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and detailed with clear technical rationale." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, detailed, and well-structured with clear technical depth and practical value." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Detailed and well-structured with strong technical depth." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and well-structured with excellent technical depth." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9.35, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, well-structured, and highly actionable with detailed data and clear architecture." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and detailed with clear structure and actionable insights." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "mistral_small_creative", "respondent_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "weighted_score": 9.35, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, well-structured, and highly actionable with excellent depth and completeness." }, { "judge_key": "deepseek_v4", "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4", "respondent_key": "seed_16_flash", "respondent_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, detailed, and well-structured with clear benefits and mitigations." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.75, "brief_justification": "The draft is technically accurate and clearly written with detailed token design, but it omits several required sections (alternatives, migration plan, risks, success criteria) and is cut off, reducing overall completeness and practical usefulness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 7.05, "brief_justification": "The RFC is factually accurate and well‑structured, with clear explanations and a useful ASCII diagram. However, it omits explicit alternatives, a detailed phased migration plan, risk/mitigation analysis, and success criteria, limiting its completeness and overall utility for implementation." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 6.35, "brief_justification": "The response accurately describes JWT migration concepts and includes data-driven problem statements with clear structure, but it is incomplete, missing key sections like alternatives, migration plan, risks, and success criteria, limiting its practical utility." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 6.35, "brief_justification": "Accurate problem statement and solution with clear diagram, but missing alternatives, migration plan, risk mitigation, and success criteria, limiting completeness and practical value." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "The RFC accurately addresses the problem with real data, covers all required sections, presents a clear ASCII diagram, and offers a detailed, actionable migration plan with risks and metrics, making it highly useful for senior engineers." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Accurate technical details, covers all required sections, clear structure, good insight into key management and migration steps, and provides actionable guidance for engineers." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 7.8, "brief_justification": "Accurate and well-structured RFC covering most required sections, but omits explicit success criteria and the risk table is incomplete, reducing completeness." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "mistral_small_creative", "respondent_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, accurate RFC with clear architecture, phased migration, and practical details; minor optimistic assumptions but overall solid and actionable." }, { "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "respondent_key": "seed_16_flash", "respondent_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "weighted_score": 7.5, "brief_justification": "The RFC is well‑structured and covers most required sections with solid technical detail, but contains a few factual inaccuracies (e.g., JWT signature description) and omits an explicit risks and mitigations section, reducing overall correctness and completeness." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive RFC with strong data, clear architecture, phased plan, and actionable details for senior engineers." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 9.35, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, technically accurate RFC with clear structure, detailed architecture, and actionable migration plan." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Excellent RFC structure, specific data, clear ASCII diagrams, and thorough risk analysis. Missing the final ASCII diagram for the proposed architecture and the remaining sections (Migration, Success Criteria, etc.) prevents a perfect score, but the provided content is high quality." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Strong technical proposal with specific data and clear architecture. Missing explicit alternatives section and detailed migration phases." }, { "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": "RFC is comprehensive, accurate, and highly actionable for senior engineers, covering all required sections with technical depth and clear structure." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "RFC is well-structured, accurate, and comprehensive with practical details for senior engineers." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "Strong technical depth with concrete metrics and clear migration plan. Minor deduction for incomplete alternatives table." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "mistral_small_creative", "respondent_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "weighted_score": 9.55, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally detailed and professional RFC. Covers all required sections with high accuracy, realistic data, and actionable plans. Diagram is clear, alternatives are well-reasoned, and risks are thoroughly addressed. The inclusion of specific metrics, timelines, and rollback criteria makes it highly useful for implementation." }, { "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "respondent_key": "seed_16_flash", "respondent_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "weighted_score": 8.6, "brief_justification": "RFC is well-structured, accurate, and comprehensive with practical details for senior engineers." }, { "judge_key": "mistral_small_creative", "judge_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally well-structured RFC with rigorous technical depth, comprehensive data-backed problem statement, clear phased migration plan, and thorough risk analysis. The hybrid JWT approach is well-justified, and the architecture diagram (ASCII) is effectively described. Alternatives are thoughtfully evaluated, and success criteria are measurable. Targets senior engineers perfectly with precise technical details and operational considerations." }, { "judge_key": "mistral_small_creative", "judge_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally thorough RFC with data-backed problem statement, phased migration plan, risk analysis, and detailed technical design. Architecture is well-justified, alternatives are critically evaluated, and the response directly addresses all requirements for senior engineers. No gaps in scope or logic." }, { "judge_key": "mistral_small_creative", "judge_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally well-structured RFC with rigorous data, clear problem framing, and a thorough technical proposal. The solution is deeply analyzed with tradeoffs, alternatives, and risks addressed. The phased migration plan and success criteria are actionable and realistic. The depth of technical detail (e.g., token design, rotation patterns, threat modeling) is outstanding for a senior engineering audience." }, { "judge_key": "mistral_small_creative", "judge_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 9.4, "brief_justification": "The RFC is highly accurate, well-structured, and thorough, covering all critical aspects of the migration. The problem statement is data-driven, the proposed solution is technically sound with clear trade-offs, and the phased migration plan is pragmatic. The risks and mitigations are well-considered, and the success criteria are measurable. The ASCII diagram, while basic, effectively communicates the architecture. Minor improvements could include more granular success metrics (e.g., specific lat" }, { "judge_key": "mistral_small_creative", "judge_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 10, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally thorough RFC with rigorous data, phased migration plan, risk analysis, and technical depth. Addresses all requirements for senior engineers with precision and actionability." }, { "judge_key": "mistral_small_creative", "judge_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Highly accurate with well-supported data, thorough coverage of all RFC sections, and clear, structured communication. Demonstrates deep technical insight (e.g., key rotation, revocation strategies) and practical actionability (phased migration, risk mitigations). Minor improvements could include a brief cost/benefit analysis or client-side implementation notes." }, { "judge_key": "mistral_small_creative", "judge_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 9.8, "brief_justification": "Flawlessly structured RFC with rigorous data, clear architecture, thorough alternatives analysis, phased migration plan, and well-defined risks. Targets senior engineers with precision—technical depth, operational pragmatism, and compliance awareness are all exemplary." }, { "judge_key": "mistral_small_creative", "judge_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 9.2, "brief_justification": "Exceptionally well-structured RFC with data-driven problem statement, thorough alternatives analysis, and a detailed phased migration plan. Architecture is clearly communicated via ASCII diagram, and risks are proactively addressed with concrete mitigations. Only minor improvements could include a brief cost-benefit analysis or performance benchmarks for the proposed JWT approach." }, { "judge_key": "mistral_small_creative", "judge_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "respondent_key": "seed_16_flash", "respondent_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "weighted_score": 9.45, "brief_justification": "The response is highly accurate, thorough, and well-structured, covering all required sections (problem statement, architecture, alternatives, migration plan, risks, and success criteria) with detailed technical depth. The phased migration plan is practical, and the security considerations are robust. Minor missing details in Phase 4 (e.g., incomplete sentence) do not significantly detract from the overall quality." }, { "judge_key": "seed_16_flash", "judge_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6", "weighted_score": 7.6, "brief_justification": "Addresses all required sections except alternatives considered, with clear technical details and actionable plans." }, { "judge_key": "seed_16_flash", "judge_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4", "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4", "weighted_score": 8.45, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive coverage with accurate data, logical architecture, and actionable steps. Addresses all RFC requirements with depth and clarity." }, { "judge_key": "seed_16_flash", "judge_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46", "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6", "weighted_score": 8, "brief_justification": "Strong correctness with data-driven problem statement; completeness has minor gaps (incomplete architecture diagrams); clear structure; deep analysis of tradeoffs; highly useful for implementation." }, { "judge_key": "seed_16_flash", "judge_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro", "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro", "weighted_score": 7.8, "brief_justification": "Addresses all required sections with accurate data and clear structure, though missing alternatives and detailed phased migration; provides actionable insights." }, { "judge_key": "seed_16_flash", "judge_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "respondent_key": "grok_420", "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, technically sound, and actionable with clear structure and thorough coverage." }, { "judge_key": "seed_16_flash", "judge_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4", "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive coverage of all RFC requirements with accurate technical details, clear structure, and actionable insights." }, { "judge_key": "seed_16_flash", "judge_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b", "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B", "weighted_score": 8.8, "brief_justification": "Comprehensive, technically sound, and actionable with clear structure and detailed analysis." }, { "judge_key": "seed_16_flash", "judge_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash", "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash", "weighted_score": 8.2, "brief_justification": "Accurately addresses all RFC requirements with data-driven problem statements, a clear phased migration plan, and practical risk mitigations. Well-structured and actionable for senior engineers." }, { "judge_key": "seed_16_flash", "judge_name": "Seed 1.6 Flash", "respondent_key": "mistral_small_creative", "respondent_name": "Mistral Small Creative", "weighted_score": 9, "brief_justification": "Thoroughly covers all RFC requirements with accurate data, clear structure, and actionable steps, including insightful analysis of trade-offs." } ], "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)" } }