{
  "evaluation_id": "EVAL-20260403-102352",
  "question_id": "ANALYSIS-021",
  "question_text": "You receive a job offer: $150K base, $50K RSUs/year, $20K signing bonus. The company's Glassdoor shows similar roles at $140K-$180K. You have a competing offer at $165K base, no RSUs. (1) Calculate total compensation for both over 4 years (assume 10% annual RSU appreciation). (2) What non-financial factors should affect the decision? (3) Write the counter-offer email that maximizes your outcome without risking the offer.",
  "category": "analysis",
  "timestamp": "2026-04-03T10:23:52.775Z",
  "display_date": "Apr 03, 2026",
  "winner": {
    "name": "GPT-5.4",
    "provider": "openrouter",
    "score": 9.11
  },
  "avg_score": 7.7744446,
  "matrix_size": 81,
  "models_used": [
    {
      "id": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "provider": "openrouter"
    },
    {
      "id": "grok_420",
      "name": "Grok 4.20",
      "provider": "openrouter"
    },
    {
      "id": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "provider": "OpenAI"
    },
    {
      "id": "gemini_3_flash",
      "name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "provider": "Google"
    },
    {
      "id": "gemini_31_pro",
      "name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "provider": "openrouter"
    },
    {
      "id": "claude_opus_46",
      "name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "provider": "openrouter"
    },
    {
      "id": "gpt_5_4",
      "name": "GPT-5.4",
      "provider": "openrouter"
    },
    {
      "id": "deepseek_v4",
      "name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "provider": "openrouter"
    },
    {
      "id": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "provider": "Xiaomi"
    }
  ],
  "rankings": {
    "gpt_5_4": {
      "display_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "provider": "openrouter",
      "average_score": 9.11,
      "score_count": 9,
      "min_score": 8.15,
      "max_score": 9.8,
      "rank": 1
    },
    "claude_sonnet_46": {
      "display_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "provider": "openrouter",
      "average_score": 8.79,
      "score_count": 9,
      "min_score": 7.55,
      "max_score": 10,
      "rank": 2
    },
    "grok_420": {
      "display_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "provider": "openrouter",
      "average_score": 8.68,
      "score_count": 9,
      "min_score": 7.5,
      "max_score": 9.55,
      "rank": 3
    },
    "mimo_v2_flash": {
      "display_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "provider": "Xiaomi",
      "average_score": 8.63,
      "score_count": 9,
      "min_score": 7.75,
      "max_score": 9.8,
      "rank": 4
    },
    "gemini_3_flash": {
      "display_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "provider": "Google",
      "average_score": 8.3,
      "score_count": 9,
      "min_score": 7.75,
      "max_score": 9,
      "rank": 5
    },
    "gpt_oss_120b": {
      "display_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "provider": "OpenAI",
      "average_score": 7.94,
      "score_count": 9,
      "min_score": 5.4,
      "max_score": 9,
      "rank": 6
    },
    "deepseek_v4": {
      "display_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "provider": "openrouter",
      "average_score": 7.36,
      "score_count": 9,
      "min_score": 5.9,
      "max_score": 8.75,
      "rank": 7
    },
    "claude_opus_46": {
      "display_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "provider": "openrouter",
      "average_score": 7.34,
      "score_count": 9,
      "min_score": 5,
      "max_score": 9.45,
      "rank": 8
    },
    "gemini_31_pro": {
      "display_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "provider": "openrouter",
      "average_score": 3.82,
      "score_count": 9,
      "min_score": 2.6,
      "max_score": 6.15,
      "rank": 9
    }
  },
  "judgments": [
    {
      "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 communication and actionable insights."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "respondent_key": "grok_420",
      "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "weighted_score": 8.8,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough analysis, clear communication, and practical advice."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "weighted_score": 8.8,
      "brief_justification": "Highly accurate calculations, thorough coverage of non-financial factors, and a well-structured counter-offer email."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "weighted_score": 8.8,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial considerations, and a well-structured counter-offer email."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "weighted_score": 6.15,
      "brief_justification": "Correctness is impacted by incomplete RSU calculation. Completeness suffers due to missing parts in the response. Clarity and depth are decent, but the response could be more thorough."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 6.05,
      "brief_justification": ""
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "weighted_score": 9.1,
      "brief_justification": ""
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "weighted_score": 6.75,
      "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": 9.55,
      "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": 10,
      "brief_justification": ""
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "respondent_key": "grok_420",
      "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "weighted_score": 8.55,
      "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": 5.45,
      "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": 8.05,
      "brief_justification": ""
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 9.2,
      "brief_justification": "Highly accurate calculations, thorough coverage of financial and non-financial factors, clear structure, insightful analysis, and practical advice."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "weighted_score": 9.2,
      "brief_justification": "Comprehensive and accurate with excellent depth and practical advice."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "weighted_score": 2.65,
      "brief_justification": "The response is severely incomplete - it cuts off mid-calculation in Part 1 and never reaches Parts 2 or 3. The RSU appreciation calculation approach shown is reasonable (applying 10% compounding from grant date), but the response fails to deliver final totals for either offer, doesn't address non-financial factors, and doesn't provide the counter-offer email. Only a fraction of the question is addressed."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "weighted_score": 8.95,
      "brief_justification": "The response is thorough, well-structured, and highly practical. The RSU appreciation calculation uses a reasonable interpretation (each year's grant appreciates from grant date to end of year 4), though one could argue alternative vesting schedule interpretations. The non-financial factors section is exceptionally comprehensive. The counter-offer email is well-crafted with sound negotiation principles. The additional scenario analysis at the end adds significant value. Minor deduction on correc"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "weighted_score": 6.95,
      "brief_justification": "The RSU calculation methodology is questionable. The response assumes each year's $50K RSU grant appreciates from the grant date to year 4, but this interpretation is debatable - a more standard reading would be that $50K/year vests each year and appreciates only from vesting. The appreciation model chosen (each grant appreciates to end of year 4) is one valid interpretation but isn't clearly justified. The competing offer calculation ignores potential raises or other standard compensation eleme"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "weighted_score": 8.5,
      "brief_justification": "The financial analysis is well-structured but the RSU appreciation calculation is debatable. The problem states '$50K RSUs/year' which most naturally means $50K granted each year. The response treats it as if each year's grant appreciates from the previous year's value ($50K→$55K→$60.5K→$66.55K), but a more standard interpretation would be that $50K is granted each year and each grant appreciates 10% from its grant date to its vest date (or that all grants appreciate 10% per year from a base). T"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 8.5,
      "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally well-structured, thorough, and practical. However, there are correctness issues in the RSU calculations. The Year 1 RSU calculation applies 10% appreciation (giving $55,000), but the prompt says $50K RSUs/year - the appreciation timing is ambiguous and the model's interpretation (appreciation from day 0) is one valid reading but debatable. More problematic: the Year 1 total should be $150K + $55K + $20K = $225,000, which checks out. But the 0% growth scenario ($820,"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "grok_420",
      "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "weighted_score": 8.3,
      "brief_justification": "The RSU calculation methodology is debatable - the response assumes each year's $50K RSU grant appreciates from grant date to end of Year 4, which is one valid interpretation but not the only one. A simpler reading might be that you receive $50K/year in RSUs and each year's grant appreciates 10% per year from when it vests. The total of $852K vs $660K and the ~$192K difference are internally consistent with the chosen methodology. However, the assumption that RSUs are granted fresh each year (ra"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "weighted_score": 7.95,
      "brief_justification": "The RSU appreciation calculation uses a specific interpretation (each year's grant appreciates from grant date to end of year 4), which is one reasonable approach but not the only one—and the problem statement is ambiguous. The Year-1 grant calculation of $50K × 1.10³ = $66,550 is correct under that assumption. However, one could also interpret it as each grant appreciating 10% per year from vesting, or that the total RSU pool appreciates. The non-financial factors section is thorough and well-o"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "weighted_score": 8.1,
      "brief_justification": "The RSU calculation has a notable issue: it treats each year's $50K RSU grant as appreciating independently from grant date, but the math is slightly off for Year 4 ($66.55K rounds to $66.5K, minor). More importantly, the calculation assumes each year's RSU grant appreciates from Year 1, when typically RSUs vest on a schedule and new grants each year wouldn't have prior appreciation. The flat-stock comparison ($110K difference) is correct. The non-financial factors are well-chosen and practical."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "judge_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "weighted_score": 2.65,
      "brief_justification": "The response is incomplete and cuts off mid-calculation, never finishes the 4-year TC, omits the non-financial factors and counter-offer email, and therefore provides limited practical value despite a somewhat clear initial structure."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "judge_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 5,
      "brief_justification": "Shows some thoughtful analysis and relevant non-financial factors, but the compensation math is based on an unstated/arguable vesting assumption and likely undercounts 4-year RSU value for a typical annual refresh interpretation. The response is also incomplete: the benefits section is cut off and it fails to provide the requested counter-offer email."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "judge_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "weighted_score": 5.9,
      "brief_justification": "Clear and reasonably structured, but the compensation math is flawed: it treats annual RSU grants as if all vest at year 4 and applies appreciation incorrectly. A proper 4-year comparison should account for vesting timing and likely future grants/refresh assumptions explicitly. Non-financial factors are solid but somewhat generic. The email is polite and low-risk, though it could better leverage the competing offer, market range, and negotiation priorities."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "judge_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "weighted_score": 7.75,
      "brief_justification": "Well-structured and practical, with a strong email draft and solid non-financial factors. Main issue is the RSU math/assumptions are oversimplified and likely overstate certainty, especially around vesting/appreciation and the break-even claim."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "judge_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 8.3,
      "brief_justification": "Well-structured and practical, with strong non-financial analysis and a solid email draft. Main weakness is the RSU math/assumptions: it treats annual RSU grants as if each full year appreciates before vesting, which may not match typical grant/vesting mechanics, so the compensation calculation is somewhat overstated and assumption-dependent."
    },
    {
      "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": "Clear, well-structured, and highly actionable response with strong non-financial considerations and a solid negotiation email. Main weakness is the compensation math relies on one specific RSU interpretation and omits vesting/tax nuances, so the total comp comparison is directionally useful but somewhat simplified."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "judge_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "weighted_score": 5.4,
      "brief_justification": "The response is reasonably clear and covers compensation and non-financial factors well, but the compensation math relies on a questionable RSU assumption and the counter-offer email is truncated, making it incomplete and less actionable."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "judge_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "weighted_score": 7.9,
      "brief_justification": "Clear, practical, and mostly accurate, but the RSU math likely overstates value by compounding each year's grant instead of modeling separate annual grants/vesting assumptions. Non-financial factors and negotiation email are strong and actionable."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "judge_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "weighted_score": 8.8,
      "brief_justification": "Detailed financial analysis, clear non-financial considerations, and a strategic counter-offer email."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "weighted_score": 3.6,
      "brief_justification": "The calculation is incomplete and contains mathematical errors (e.g., incorrect exponentiation for Year 3). The non-financial factors are generic, and the counter-offer email is missing entirely."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 8.55,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with clear assumptions, thorough coverage of non-financial factors, and a practical counter-offer email draft."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "weighted_score": 9.55,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough coverage of all parts, exceptionally clear structure, insightful analysis of non-financial factors and negotiation strategy, and highly actionable advice."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "weighted_score": 8.75,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial factors, and a well-structured, actionable email; minor note on RSU vesting timing could be clearer."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 9.35,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with clear caveats, thorough non-financial framework, and a strategic, actionable counter-offer email."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "respondent_key": "grok_420",
      "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "weighted_score": 9,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial factors, and a well-structured counter-offer email with practical negotiation advice."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "judge_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "weighted_score": 9,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial factors, and a well-structured, actionable counter-offer email."
    },
    {
      "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": "Accurate calculations, thorough non-financial analysis, and a well-structured, actionable counter-offer email with clear strategic reasoning."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "weighted_score": 3.05,
      "brief_justification": "The response is incomplete - it cuts off mid-calculation during Part 1 and never addresses Parts 2 or 3 of the question. The RSU calculation approach shown is reasonable but the response fails to deliver the counter-offer email or non-financial analysis. What exists is partially correct but the truncated output makes this response largely unusable."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 8.1,
      "brief_justification": "The response provides a thorough and well-structured analysis with detailed RSU calculations, scenario analysis, and comprehensive non-financial factors. The RSU calculation methodology is reasonable though the assumption of 25% annual vesting per grant adds complexity not specified in the question. The response is cut off before completing Part 3 (the counter-offer email), which is a significant omission that hurts completeness. The scenario analysis showing stock performance sensitivity is par"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "weighted_score": 9.1,
      "brief_justification": "Excellent comprehensive response covering all three parts thoroughly. The RSU calculation methodology is reasonable (treating each grant as appreciating from grant date to year-end of the 4-year period), though one could argue about vesting schedule assumptions. The non-financial factors section is exhaustive and well-organized. The counter-offer email is professional, strategic, and well-explained. The additional scenarios showing alternative negotiation paths add significant practical value. M"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "weighted_score": 7.3,
      "brief_justification": "The RSU calculation methodology is questionable - it assumes RSUs granted each year appreciate differently based on when they vest, but the math reverses the appreciation logic (Year 1 RSUs shouldn't appreciate the most if they vest first). The total comp figures are presented clearly but the underlying assumption isn't well-explained. Non-financial factors are comprehensive but somewhat generic. The counter-offer email is practical and well-crafted, though it could be stronger by mentioning mar"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "weighted_score": 8.55,
      "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all three parts thoroughly. The financial calculations are mostly correct, though the RSU appreciation model assumes each year's grant appreciates independently which is a reasonable interpretation. The break-even analysis claim is slightly off without showing the math. Non-financial factors are relevant and practical. The counter-offer email is professional, strategic, and actionable with good reasoning for why it works. Minor gaps include not addressi"
    },
    {
      "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": "Strong response with accurate RSU calculations using a reasonable interpretation (appreciated value at end of year 4). The math is correct and clearly explained. Non-financial factors are comprehensive and well-organized. The counter-offer email is professional, strategic, and includes useful meta-commentary on why it works. Minor issue: the RSU calculation assumes all grants vest at end of year 4 rather than a typical vesting schedule, but the assumption is stated clearly. The competing offer c"
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "weighted_score": 8.55,
      "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all three parts thoroughly. The RSU calculation uses a reasonable interpretation (each grant appreciates until year 4), though the methodology could be more explicitly stated. The non-financial factors table is comprehensive and actionable. The counter-offer email is professional, data-driven, and strategic. Minor issue: the email appears cut off at the end, missing the closing and alternative option 2. The RSU math is internally consistent but assumes "
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "judge_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "weighted_score": 8.3,
      "brief_justification": "The response is well-structured and covers all three parts thoroughly. The RSU calculation has a minor issue: it treats each year's RSU grant as appreciating independently (Year 2 grant at $55K, Year 3 at $60.5K, etc.), which is a reasonable simplification but doesn't account for vesting schedules or the compounding of prior grants. The flat-stock scenario math ($110K advantage) is not shown explicitly. Non-financial factors are insightful and practical. The counter-offer email is professional, "
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "grok_420",
      "judge_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "weighted_score": 4.6,
      "brief_justification": "Calculation is fundamentally flawed (misapplies appreciation to grant value instead of share price impact on vested units) and incomplete (cuts off mid-calculation, omits Offer B entirely). Non-financial factors and email not provided in the truncated response. Structure is clear but content inaccurate and insufficient."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "grok_420",
      "judge_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 7.15,
      "brief_justification": "The response provides a detailed and structured analysis with useful non-financial factors and a solid (though incomplete) approach to the email, but contains calculation errors in RSU valuation that reduce factual accuracy."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "grok_420",
      "judge_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "weighted_score": 8.15,
      "brief_justification": "Calculations contain a conceptual error in RSU appreciation modeling (compounding applies incorrectly to grants), but overall response is thorough, well-structured, and highly practical with good non-financial factors and negotiation advice."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "grok_420",
      "judge_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "weighted_score": 6.4,
      "brief_justification": "RSU appreciation calculation is mathematically incorrect (wrong compounding periods and methodology for vesting grants); other sections are reasonably complete and clear but lack deeper analysis on risks/tax implications and more strategic negotiation language."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "grok_420",
      "judge_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "weighted_score": 7.75,
      "brief_justification": "The response is mostly accurate on calculations but has a flaw in RSU appreciation modeling (applies growth to vesting value incorrectly instead of grant value). It covers all three parts thoroughly with clear structure, tables, and strategic email. Depth is solid on non-financial factors and negotiation tactics but could explore more on taxes/vesting nuances. Highly useful for decision-making."
    },
    {
      "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": "Calculations contain errors in RSU appreciation modeling (compounding grant value incorrectly instead of applying to vested shares annually); non-financial factors and email are thorough, well-structured, and practical with good depth."
    },
    {
      "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": "Highly accurate calculations and comprehensive, well-structured analysis covering all three parts with practical, actionable advice and a professional email template."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "grok_420",
      "judge_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "weighted_score": 7.75,
      "brief_justification": "Calculations contain errors in RSU appreciation (compounding applied incorrectly to new grants), but overall structure is logical. Non-financial factors and email are comprehensive, professional, and actionable with good strategic insights."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "weighted_score": 2.6,
      "brief_justification": "Response is truncated and omits most required calculations, non-financial factors, and the counter-offer email, making it largely incomplete despite clear formatting of the portion provided."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 5,
      "brief_justification": "Calculations are partly correct but confusing; missing counter-offer email and cuts off non-financial factors, reducing completeness and overall usefulness despite decent depth and clarity."
    },
    {
      "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 with reasonable assumptions, covers all requested parts, well-structured, offers insightful analysis and practical negotiation email."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "weighted_score": 8,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with clear presentation; covers all three prompts and offers a practical email, though equity assumptions could be clarified and deeper negotiation insight would improve depth."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "weighted_score": 8.6,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, covers all required parts, clear tables and bullet points, offers solid analysis and a ready-to-send email, though could include a few more nuance points."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 8.55,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations with reasonable assumptions, covers all requested parts, well-structured, offers deep analysis of risks and non-financial factors, and provides a practical counter‑offer email."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "respondent_key": "grok_420",
      "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "weighted_score": 7.5,
      "brief_justification": "Calculations are mostly correct but contain a mistake in the no-appreciation comparison; covers all requested parts with clear structure; offers solid but not exhaustive depth; provides practical email template and factor list."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "judge_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "weighted_score": 8,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate compensation math overall, but contains a minor factual error about flat RSU comparison; covers all required parts with clear structure; offers solid but not exhaustive non-financial considerations; provides a practical email template."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "weighted_score": 6.05,
      "brief_justification": "The response is incomplete and cuts off mid-calculation for Part 1. It fails to address Part 2 (non-financial factors) and Part 3 (the email) entirely. While the math started correctly, the lack of completion makes it unusable for the user's request."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 9.45,
      "brief_justification": "The response provides a highly accurate and detailed financial breakdown, including a sophisticated RSU vesting model. It offers deep insight into non-financial factors. However, it cut off at the very end of the benefits section and failed to include the requested counter-offer email."
    },
    {
      "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 is exceptionally thorough. It correctly calculates the 4-year compensation using the requested 10% appreciation (treating grants as annual events), provides a comprehensive list of non-financial factors, and writes a professional, low-risk counter-offer email that leverages the provided Glassdoor data and competing offer effectively."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "weighted_score": 8.75,
      "brief_justification": "The financial calculation for RSUs is slightly unconventional (applying appreciation backwards from the grant date rather than forward from year 1), but the logic is internally consistent. The non-financial factors are comprehensive and the email is professional and low-risk."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "weighted_score": 9.8,
      "brief_justification": "The financial calculations are accurate and account for the 10% compounding growth requested. The non-financial analysis is comprehensive, and the counter-offer email is professionally written with a sound negotiation strategy."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 9.8,
      "brief_justification": "The response is exceptionally thorough. It correctly calculates the 4-year total compensation including compounding RSU appreciation, provides a nuanced risk analysis of guaranteed vs. variable pay, offers a comprehensive framework for non-financial factors, and provides a professional, well-structured counter-offer email."
    },
    {
      "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. The math for the RSUs correctly accounts for annual grants and appreciation (though it assumes a 4-year vesting schedule for each grant which is a standard interpretation). The non-financial factors are comprehensive, and the counter-offer email is professionally written with a strong strategic approach."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "judge_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "weighted_score": 9,
      "brief_justification": "The response provides a detailed and accurate calculation of total compensation, a comprehensive list of non-financial factors, and a professional counter-offer email. The RSU calculation logic is sound based on the 10% appreciation prompt, though it cuts off slightly at the very end of the email template."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "minimax_m25",
      "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_31_pro",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3.1 Pro",
      "weighted_score": 3.05,
      "brief_justification": "Response is severely incomplete - cuts off mid-sentence during Year 3 RSU calculation, never completes Part 1, omits Offer B calculation entirely, and fails to provide Parts 2 and 3 (non-financial factors and counter-offer email). The partial content appears accurate but the response does not answer the question."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "minimax_m25",
      "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5",
      "respondent_key": "claude_opus_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Opus 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 7.55,
      "brief_justification": "Financial calculations are accurate and well-presented with risk scenarios. Non-financial factors are comprehensive and insightful. However, the response is incomplete - Part 3 (the counter-offer email) is entirely missing, which was a key deliverable requested in the question. This significant omission reduces practical usefulness despite strong analysis in other areas."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "minimax_m25",
      "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_5_4",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-5.4",
      "weighted_score": 9.35,
      "brief_justification": "Comprehensive financial analysis with accurate 4-year calculations and conservative scenarios. Thorough non-financial factors covering role, manager, culture, stability, and benefits. Professional counter-offer email with clear strategy, reasonable anchoring, and multiple negotiation targets. Highly actionable and well-structured."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "minimax_m25",
      "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5",
      "respondent_key": "deepseek_v4",
      "respondent_name": "DeepSeek V4",
      "weighted_score": 7.4,
      "brief_justification": "Solid coverage of all three requested elements with clear structure. RSU calculation methodology is questionable (treating each year's grant separately with different appreciation periods is unusual), but the comparison framework is reasonable. Non-financial factors are comprehensive. The counter-offer email is professional but could be more strategically bold given the significant compensation gap."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "minimax_m25",
      "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5",
      "respondent_key": "mimo_v2_flash",
      "respondent_name": "MiMo-V2-Flash",
      "weighted_score": 8.35,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate financial calculations with clear tables. Comprehensive non-financial factors and practical email template. Minor depth gaps on walk-away points, but highly actionable."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "minimax_m25",
      "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5",
      "respondent_key": "claude_sonnet_46",
      "respondent_name": "Claude Sonnet 4.6",
      "weighted_score": 8.3,
      "brief_justification": "Comprehensive analysis covering all three parts with clear tables and structured frameworks. Financial calculations include useful scenario analysis, though the RSU appreciation methodology has a technical issue (RSUs typically vest at fixed share counts, not dollar amounts that appreciate). Non-financial factors are well-tiered, and the counter-offer email is professional with reasonable asks. Minor deduction for the RSU calculation methodology, but overall highly actionable and thorough."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "minimax_m25",
      "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5",
      "respondent_key": "grok_420",
      "respondent_name": "Grok 4.20",
      "weighted_score": 9.3,
      "brief_justification": "Comprehensive response covering all three parts with accurate calculations (minor error in the ~$110k figure - should be ~$160k without appreciation), thorough non-financial factors, and a well-crafted counter-offer email that uses strategic anchoring while maintaining a collaborative tone."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "minimax_m25",
      "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5",
      "respondent_key": "gpt_oss_120b",
      "respondent_name": "GPT-OSS-120B",
      "weighted_score": 8.55,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate 4-year compensation calculation with reasonable RSU assumptions. Comprehensive non-financial factors table covers all key areas. Professional counter-offer email is data-driven, polite, and offers multiple flexible options. Minor deduction for not fully addressing RSU vesting schedule nuances."
    },
    {
      "judge_key": "minimax_m25",
      "judge_name": "MiniMax M2.5",
      "respondent_key": "gemini_3_flash",
      "respondent_name": "Gemini 3 Flash Preview",
      "weighted_score": 8.8,
      "brief_justification": "Accurate calculations, well-organized structure, comprehensive coverage of financial and non-financial factors. Email template is professional and strategically sound. Minor deduction in depth for not exploring vesting schedules or tax implications more deeply."
    }
  ],
  "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)"
  }
}