GLM 5.2 (OpenRouter)

What it nailed

• Completed the full 23-file package with real Office, PDF, HTML, markdown, and JSON artifacts.
• Handled the benchmark’s central absurdities with unusually strong judgment: dingo behavior, Alaska/Australia optics, import-created demand, legal uncertainty, ethics, and support liability.
• Maintained a consistent source-of-truth posture for revenue, launch timing, pricing, budget, runway, imports, TAM, and customer-feedback exclusions.
• Used provided source imagery in the deck, sales one-pager, dashboard, personas, and copy references rather than inventing inconsistent visuals.
• Separated real competitors from fictional/scenario competitors and did not treat inquiry counts or curiosity traffic as TAM.
• Produced a credible board/investor strategy with staged gates and non-evasive answers to uncomfortable questions.

Where it slipped

• Regulatory research is directionally strong but citation precision is uneven; several official sources are generic agency URLs rather than direct rule pages.
• Some market-sizing claims are derived or loosely supported and would need stronger verification before investor/public use.
• The pricing workbook’s Cost_Sensitivity formulas appear to contain column-reference errors, reducing spreadsheet reliability.
• The public-facing press release still mentions Northern Canid Imports/acquisition support, which may be legally and reputationally sensitive despite the no-CTA posture.
• The package is visually solid but not elite editorial design; operator review noted the one-pager footer is close to the page edge.
• The dashboard depends on Chart.js via CDN, so it is not fully self-contained/offline despite being a standalone HTML artifact.

What it nailed

• Produced all required artifacts: SQLite DB, migration script, documentation, report, design doc, static UI, and frontend JSON.
• Strong source inventory foundation with hashes, source-file statuses, and sensitive-file skipping.
• Working normalized database with populated customers, jobs, services, payments, conflicts, flags, rejected items, source records, and duplicate image groups.
• Good reviewer UI that passed operator visual QA and mobile usability checks.
• Correctly handled several important issues: Terrence Blackwood as orphan, corrupted JSON as partial, Mickey/Test Customer rejection, and byte-identical duplicate images.

Where it slipped

• Primary canary failures cap the score: `Asdf Asdf` promoted as active, typo-order names not merged, SVC-007/The Works conflict not clearly detected, and department code normalization absent.
• Handwritten receipt images and PDF invoices are mostly metadata-only/manual-review items, not extracted business evidence.
• Price-era handling is materially wrong for many services; the report and DB show several old prices equal to current prices.
• Entity-resolution audit tables are empty despite duplicate-merge claims, and multiple partial/typo customer entities remain.
• Provenance is useful but often file-level rather than exact canonical-record-to-source-record tracing.

What it nailed

• All four requested build levels are represented by final index.html pages after intervention.
• The artifact design uses a credible single-source-of-truth structure, with kitSpec data driving manifests, steps, and animation.
• Piece counts are exact in the displayed manifests across 100, 250, 500, and 1000-piece targets.
• The viewer includes play/pause, previous/next, speed, scrubber, show-complete, orbit, guide, BOM, HUD text, and highlighted additions.
• Concept silhouettes are recognizable and include many requested thematic features.

Where it slipped

• The run was operator-assisted after transport/provider failure and cannot be treated as an autonomous completion.
• Original generated viewer/generation path was not locally runnable without repair.
• Physical buildability is questionable because the models rely on generic primitives, custom part abstractions, and procedural decorative massing.
• The largest build has an overloaded final detail batch and is not a fine-grained real assembly guide.
• Visuals are legible but blocky/procedural rather than client-grade designer brick builds.
• Mobile usability is functional but the HUD takes up much of the small viewport.

What it nailed

• Complete artifact set with clear documentation and run instructions.
• Runnable, nonblank Three.js visualization with meaningful controls and phase-driven scene changes.
• Strong mission-beat coverage across launch, staging, orbit checkout, lunar flyby, return, re-entry, splashdown, and recovery.
• Visual QA found the desktop and mobile presentations usable, with no hard visual blocking defects.

Where it slipped

• Severe citation discipline failures: many specific claims are tied to generic or non-specific URLs.
• Public-facing fact sheet and visualization overclaim completed mission/post-flight events without auditable source support.
• Material internal inconsistency around ICPS separation and TLI undermines mission-architecture accuracy.
• Production readiness is limited by factual unreliability despite a strong interactive shell.