{ "entity": "claude-fable-5", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Research", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks4/research", "model": "anthropic/claude-fable-5", "judges": [ "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "x-ai/grok-4.5" ], "judge_protocol": "judge-2026-08b", "anchors": "solo-2026-08-a", "score": 92, "caps": 1, "cost_usd": 0.5264, "started_at": "2026-08-16T14:41:58.079Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-16T14:43:24.960Z", "tasks": [ { "id": "rs1", "name": "Make it answerable", "prompt": "'Is coffee bad for you?' is not a researchable question. Turn it into exactly 3 properly researchable questions, numbered 1-3, one line each, no sub-points — each must specify who (the population), what (the exposure and amount), and which outcome is being measured.", "output": "1. Does daily consumption of 3–4 cups of caffeinated coffee increase the risk of hypertension in adults aged 40–65 over a 10-year period?\n2. Is drinking 200 mg or more of caffeine from coffee per day during pregnancy associated with lower birth weight in infants born to women aged 18–45?\n3. Does consuming 2 or more cups of coffee daily reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in adults aged 30–60 with no prior diabetes diagnosis?", "latency_ms": 5655, "cost": 0.01112, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing exactly three well-structured, researchable questions that clearly define the population, exposure/amount, and outcome on a single line each without sub-points." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exactly three numbered, single-line research questions. Each specifies a defined population, quantified coffee/caffeine exposure, and measurable health outcome. The questions are clear, appropriately scoped, and researchable." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exactly 3 numbered one-line questions; each specifies population, exposure/amount, and outcome as required." } ], "machine_checks": { "exact_bullets": 3 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs2", "name": "Rank the sources", "prompt": "You are researching whether standing desks reduce back pain. Rank these 5 sources from most to least trustworthy for that question, one line of reasoning each: (a) a 2022 systematic review of 17 trials in a peer-reviewed journal; (b) a standing-desk manufacturer's white paper; (c) a Mumsnet thread with 200 replies; (d) a 2015 trial with 24 office workers; (e) an NHS page on back pain last reviewed 2024. Then say which ONE you would cite to a sceptical reader and why.", "output": "**Ranking (most → least trustworthy):**\n\n1. **(a) 2022 systematic review of 17 trials** — synthesises multiple studies with peer review, giving the broadest and most recent evidence base for this exact question.\n2. **(e) NHS page, reviewed 2024** — authoritative, recently reviewed, and independent, though it addresses back pain generally rather than standing desks specifically.\n3. **(d) 2015 trial, n=24** — primary evidence on-topic, but a single small, older study is vulnerable to chance findings and can't support strong conclusions alone.\n4. **(c) Mumsnet thread, 200 replies** — real user experience but unsystematic, self-selected anecdotes with no controls; useful for hypotheses, not conclusions.\n5. **(b) manufacturer's white paper** — a direct financial interest in the answer creates a conflict that undermines trust regardless of how polished the data looks.\n\n**Which I'd cite to a sceptical reader: (a), the systematic review.**\n\nIt's the only source that directly answers the specific question with aggregated, peer-reviewed evidence — a sceptic can check its methods, its included trials, and its limitations, which is exactly the kind of transparency that anecdotes, marketing material, or a single small study can't offer. (The NHS page is a good supporting link, but it's too general to carry the specific claim on its own.)", "latency_ms": 13282, "cost": 0.03943, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing a logical ranking with concise, accurate reasoning for each source, and clearly identifies the best source to cite with a strong justification." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, complete, and well justified. The main debatable point is ranking Mumsnet above a manufacturer white paper: both are weak, but a white paper may contain inspectable evidence despite bias, whereas forum anecdotes are not research." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate ranking by evidence hierarchy; clear one-line reasons; correctly picks systematic review for sceptic. Minor polish only." } ], "machine_checks": null, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs3", "name": "Synthesise the disagreement", "prompt": "Three studies, summarised: Study A (2021, 12,000 adults followed 5 years) — people sleeping under 6 hours had 20% higher rates of catching colds. Study B (2019, 300 students, one term) — no significant link between sleep and illness days. Study C (2023, review of 40 studies) — consistent link between short sleep and infection risk, but most studies could not rule out that stress causes both. Write a summary of max 120 words of what we actually know, giving the disagreement and the confounder their honest weight.", "output": "**What we know:** Evidence tentatively links short sleep (under 6 hours) with higher infection risk. The largest single study (A: 12,000 adults, 5 years) found a 20% increase in colds, and a 2023 review of 40 studies (C) found this association consistently. However, Study B (300 students, one term) found no link — though its small size and short duration mean it could easily have missed a real effect.\n\n**The key caveat:** Most studies, per the review, cannot rule out that stress causes both poor sleep and illness. So we have a reliable *association*, but weak evidence that short sleep itself *causes* infections. Improving sleep might help — or might do little if stress is the true driver.\n\n(115 words)", "latency_ms": 6503, "cost": 0.01399, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly synthesizes the three studies within the 120-word limit. It accurately weighs the evidence, clearly explains the confounder (stress), and is highly useful and accessible for a non-technical reader." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately presents the large study, null smaller study, review, and stress confounding. It appropriately distinguishes association from causation. Minor overstatement: calling the association “reliable” is stronger than warranted given per" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate summary weighting all studies and confounder fairly; clear, concise, under limit; minor polish only possible." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 120 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs4", "name": "Tear down the survey", "prompt": "A press release claims: 'Study proves 92% of Britons love exercising. Researchers surveyed 40 members of a Shoreditch gym, recruited through the gym's Instagram page.' List the 3 biggest methodological problems as bullets, one line each, most fatal first. No sub-points.", "output": "- **Sampling bias:** Surveying gym members recruited via a gym's Instagram guarantees respondents already like exercising, so the sample cannot represent Britons.\n- **Tiny sample size:** 40 people is far too small to generalise to a population of ~67 million with any meaningful precision.\n- **Overclaiming causation/certainty:** A single small survey cannot \"prove\" anything about national attitudes; at best it describes that one self-selected group.", "latency_ms": 6947, "cost": 0.00937, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfectly follows all instructions, identifying the three most critical methodological flaws in order of severity. Uses single-line bullets with no sub-points, and the explanations are clear, accurate, and highly useful." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies severe self-selection/coverage bias, inadequate sample size, and unjustified “proves” language. The causation framing is slightly imprecise because the claim is descriptive, not causal; geographic and demographic nonrep" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct top issues in right order; exact format followed; clear, concise, highly useful." } ], "machine_checks": { "exact_bullets": 3 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs5", "name": "Correlation for the neighbour", "prompt": "A headline reads: 'People who drink red wine live longer, study finds.' The study: 100,000 people followed for 10 years; wine drinkers had 12% lower mortality — but they were also richer, exercised more and smoked less. Explain to your neighbour in max 100 words what a study like this can and cannot show. No jargon — the word 'confounder' may appear once at most, and only if you explain it.", "output": "Here's the catch: this study can show that wine drinkers, as a group, died at lower rates. It cannot show the wine caused that.\n\nWhy? The wine drinkers were also richer, fitter, and smoked less — any of those could explain the longer lives. Wine might just be a marker of an already-healthy lifestyle, not the cause of it. Scientists call this kind of mixed-up factor a \"confounder.\"\n\nTo really test wine itself, you'd need to compare similar people who differ only in drinking — which this study didn't do.\n\nSo: interesting pattern, but no reason to start drinking.", "latency_ms": 7851, "cost": 0.01325, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly explains correlation vs causation without jargon, stays under the 100-word limit (96 words), uses and explains 'confounder' exactly once, and is highly accessible to a layperson." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, accurate explanation of association versus causation and alternative lifestyle explanations. It fits the audience and word limit. Minor issue: comparing similar people observationally still may not isolate wine; random assignment wou" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate explanation of association vs causation; 95 words; confounder used once and defined; clear, jargon-free, fully meets all constraints." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 100 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs6", "name": "Plan the dig", "prompt": "Someone wants to trace the history of their 1930s semi in Leicester — who built it, who has lived there, what stood on the land before. Lay out the kinds of sources and places in the UK that answer each part (deeds, census-type records, old maps, local archives, newspaper archives), what each one can and cannot tell them, and the sensible order to work in. No URLs — the shape of the search, not links.", "output": "# Tracing a 1930s Leicester Semi: A Working Plan\n\nThe three questions — builder, occupants, previous land use — pull on different sources, but they overlap, so the sensible approach is to work **backwards from what you hold now**, then fan out.\n\n---\n\n## Step 1: Start with what's in your own hands\n\n**The deeds and title documents**\n- If you own the house, check whether a solicitor or mortgage lender holds (or once held) a deeds packet. Historically these bundles contained conveyances, mortgages, and sometimes an *abstract of title* summarising ownership back decades. Ask; many were returned to owners or, sadly, destroyed once titles were registered electronically.\n- **What they tell you:** chain of ownership, the original conveyance from builder or developer to first purchaser (often naming the building firm), restrictive covenants (which hint at the estate's original character — \"no trade or business,\" fence heights, etc.).\n- **What they can't:** occupants (owners and residents often differ), anything about the land before the estate was laid out unless an early plan survives in the bundle.\n\n**HM Land Registry title register and plan**\n- Cheap to obtain, quick.\n- **Tells you:** current owner, sometimes the date of first registration, covenants, occasionally references to earlier conveyances by date (useful anchors).\n- **Can't:** it is not a historical record. Leicester came under compulsory registration relatively late in the 20th century, so the register may only reach back a few decades. Treat it as a starting point, not a history.\n\n---\n\n## Step 2: Who built it, and exactly when\n\n**Building control plans (the single best source for a 1930s house)**\n- Interwar houses in Leicester needed byelaw approval. Deposited plans typically survive either with **Leicester City Council** (building control) or transferred to the county record office.\n- **Tells you:** the exact plan approval date, the builder or developer's name, sometimes an architect, drainage plans, and the original layout — often the whole estate application at once, which reveals how your street was developed in phases.\n- **Can't:** occupants; and approval date isn't completion date (some plots sat unbuilt for years — check against directories).\n\n**Street naming and numbering records / rate books**\n- Councils recorded when new streets were adopted and numbered; rate books show when a property first attracted rates (i.e., was habitable) and who was liable.\n- **Tells you:** effective completion date, first ratepayer.\n- **Can't:** survival is patchy; not all runs exist.\n\n**Newspapers (see Step 5)** often nail the builder via adverts.\n\n---\n\n## Step 3: Who has lived there\n\nWork chronologically forward from the build date.\n\n**Electoral registers**\n- Held at the record office and local studies library; long runs, usually arranged by street.\n- **Tells you:** registered adult occupants, year by year — the backbone of an occupancy timeline. You can watch households arrive, marry, and leave.\n- **Can't:** children, lodgers who didn't register, anyone who moved mid-year. There's a **gap during WWII** (registers suspended roughly 1940–44). Names only — no ages or occupations.\n\n**The 1939 Register**\n- Taken at the outbreak of war; the closest thing to a census for a 1930s house. Available through the big genealogy subscription services and at institutions that offer access.\n- **Tells you:** everyone in the house on one night in September 1939 — full names, exact dates of birth, occupations.\n- **Can't:** records of people still potentially living are redacted (closed) unless proven deceased; military personnel absent.\n\n**Census returns — with a critical caveat**\n- The **1931 census was destroyed by fire** and **no census was taken in 1941**. So for a house built in, say, 1934, there may be *no* census that ever captured it until 1951 — and censuses are closed for 100 years. The **1921 census** (available) will show the land or an earlier property, not your house, unless yours is very early-1930s and the street existed by 1921 in embryo.\n- This is why the 1939 Register and electoral registers matter so much for interwar houses.\n\n**Trade and street directories (Kelly's and similar)**\n- Annual-ish volumes listing streets house by house, naming the householder and often occupation.\n- **Tells you:** when the house first appears (a good completion proxy), head of household year by year.\n- **Can't:** other family members; accuracy lags — a directory may repeat stale information for a year or two. Coverage thins after WWII and directories die out by the 1960s–70s.\n\n**Telephone directories, probate calendars, parish registers**\n- Useful for filling gaps and adding colour: probate entries give addresses and estate values; church records tie families to the house.\n\n---\n\n## Step 4: What stood on the land before\n\n**Ordnance Survey maps, edition by edition**\n- The large-scale (25-inch) OS surveys of Leicester exist in several revisions from the 1880s through the 1930s and beyond. Lay them side by side.\n- **Tells you:** whether the land was fields, orchards, allotments, a farm, brickworks, a big house's grounds; field boundaries; the moment the street appears. For 1930s suburbs the answer is very often agricultural land or the estate of a demolished villa or farm — the street name itself is frequently a clue (farms, landowners, field names).\n- **Can't:** ownership or use in any detail; a blank field on the map still had an owner and a name.\n\n**Tithe maps and apportionments (c. 1840s)**\n- Held at the record office; a map plus a schedule.\n- **Tells you:** the field's name, its owner, its occupier, and its use (arable, pasture) a century before your house. Field names sometimes survive as street names.\n- **Can't:** anything after the 1840s; urban parishes sometimes weren't tithed.\n\n**Inclosure awards and estate maps**\n- Earlier still, if the land was enclosed common field; estate maps if the land belonged to a large landowner whose papers were deposited.\n\n**Sale particulars and auction catalogues**\n- When farmland was broken up for building, it was usually auctioned in lots, with printed catalogues and plans. Record offices hold collections of these.\n- **Tells you:** exactly when and how the land passed from field to building estate, the vendor, the lot layout your street follows.\n\n---\n\n## Step 5: Newspapers — the connective tissue\n\n- The **Leicester Mercury** and its predecessors, searchable through the British Newspaper Archive (digitised runs are incomplete, so also check microfilm at the local studies library).\n- **Tells you:** builders' adverts for \"new semi-detached residences\" naming price, builder, and show-house; land auction notices; planning notices; and later, the human story — weddings, deaths, court cases, air-raid damage reports — attached to your address or your occupants' names.\n- **Can't:** full coverage. Digitisation of local papers is patchy, especially for the mid-20th century; a null search result means little. Search occupants' names as well as the address, and try street name without number.\n\n---\n\n## Where to actually go\n\n- **Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland** (at Wigston): the central repository — electoral registers, rate books, tithe maps, sale particulars, deposited plans, parish records, estate papers, directories.\n- **Leicester City Council building control / planning**: deposited byelaw plans if not transferred to the record office; later planning history.\n- **Local studies collection** (central library): directories, newspaper microfilm, published street histories, photographs.\n- **HM Land Registry**: current title.\n- **Online genealogy services / institutional access**: 1939 Register, 1921 census, probate calendars, digitised newspapers.\n\n---\n\n## The order, in one list\n\n1. Deeds packet and Land Registry title — establish anchors and covenant clues.\n2. Building control plans and rate books — builder, developer, exact date.\n3. Directories and electoral registers forward from that date — the occupancy spine.\n4. 1939 Register — the one full-household snapshot.\n5. OS map editions backwards — watch the street dissolve into fields.\n6. Tithe map, inclosure awards, sale particulars — name the field and its owners.\n7. Newspapers throughout — flesh on every bone above.\n\n**Two habits worth keeping:** house numbers were sometimes changed when streets were extended, so verify your number against early plans and directories before trusting any record; and log every negative result — knowing a source *doesn't* cover your year saves you re-searching it later.", "latency_ms": 58537, "cost": 0.18277, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses all aspects of the prompt with high factual accuracy and excellent structure. It provides a clear, practical guide for a layperson and strictly adheres to the negative constraint of including no URLs." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Strong, practical Leicester-specific plan covering all requested source types, limits, and sequence. Minor overstatements: building-control plans and rate books do not always identify builder or prove habitability; the 1921-census wording i" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate UK sources, clear can/cannot limits, sensible order, no URLs; comprehensive yet usable for a non-technical reader." } ], "machine_checks": null, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs7", "name": "What you cannot cite", "prompt": "'Give me the DOI, journal and page numbers for that 2021 sleep study you mentioned.' You have no way to verify those details. In max 90 words: say plainly what you cannot reliably provide and why, what goes wrong when an AI invents citations, and the two-step way they can find the real paper themselves — what to search and where.", "output": "I can't reliably provide DOIs, page numbers, or journal details — I don't have database access to verify them, and I may misremember or conflate sources. If I invent a citation, it can look perfectly plausible but be fake, wasting your time chasing a nonexistent paper or, worse, ending up in your own work and damaging your credibility.\n\nTo find it yourself: (1) Search Google Scholar or PubMed using key terms — topic, \"sleep,\" and \"2021.\" (2) Once you spot the paper, get the DOI and page numbers directly from the journal's page.", "latency_ms": 6403, "cost": 0.01316, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses all prompts requirements with clear, concise, and accurate information. However, it violates the maximum 90-word constraint (the response is 91 words long)." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Plainly states unverified details and why, explains fabricated-citation risks, and gives a clear two-step search process with appropriate sources. It is concise, professional, and within the 90-word limit (89 words)." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Meets all content requirements exactly and clearly; only exceeds 90-word limit by a few words." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 90 }, "machine_violation": true, "machine_reasons": [ "91 words against a maximum of 90" ] }, { "id": "rs8", "name": "Structure the evidence", "prompt": "Turn these findings into JSON — reply with ONLY valid JSON, an array of objects with keys source, year, sample_size, finding (finding is one sentence): 'The Whitworth trial (2020) followed 850 runners and found calf strengthening halved recurrence of achilles injury. A 2017 survey by a running magazine of 3,200 readers found 61% had been injured that year. Meffert and Cole's 2023 review of 12 trials concluded the evidence that stretching prevents injury is weak.'", "output": "[\n {\n \"source\": \"Whitworth trial\",\n \"year\": 2020,\n \"sample_size\": 850,\n \"finding\": \"Calf strengthening halved the recurrence of Achilles injury among runners.\"\n },\n {\n \"source\": \"Running magazine survey\",\n \"year\": 2017,\n \"sample_size\": 3200,\n \"finding\": \"61% of readers reported having been injured that year.\"\n },\n {\n \"source\": \"Meffert and Cole review\",\n \"year\": 2023,\n \"sample_size\": 12,\n \"finding\": \"The evidence that stretching prevents injury is weak.\"\n }\n]", "latency_ms": 6603, "cost": 0.01243, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing only valid JSON with the exact requested keys and formatting the findings as single sentences." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Valid JSON with exactly the required keys. All years, sample sizes, sources, and findings accurately reflect the supplied text, and each finding is one sentence." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfect JSON array matching all keys, data, and one-sentence findings exactly as specified." } ], "machine_checks": { "must_parse_json": true }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs9", "name": "Ask without leading", "prompt": "A parish council wants residents' views on converting a corner of the village green into 6 parking spaces. Write 5 survey questions, numbered 1-5, one line each, no answer options and no sub-points — every question neutral enough that BOTH sides of the argument would call it fair. No 'don't you agree', no benefits smuggled into the wording.", "output": "1. To what extent do you support or oppose converting a corner of the village green into 6 parking spaces?\n\n2. How often, if at all, do you currently use the corner of the village green in question?\n\n3. How would you describe the current availability of parking in the village?\n\n4. What impact, if any, do you think the proposed change would have on the village?\n\n5. What alternatives, if any, would you like the council to consider before making a decision?", "latency_ms": 5096, "cost": 0.00875, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions and constraints. The questions are strictly neutral, numbered 1-5, one line each, without answer options or sub-points. Excellent clarity and utility." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All five questions are numbered, neutral, and contain no answer options or sub-points. They cover support, current use, parking context, perceived impacts, and alternatives. Minor limitation: questions 3 and 4 are broad and may yield less s" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Five neutral, one-line questions meeting all specs; fair to both sides with no leading language or smuggled benefits." } ], "machine_checks": { "exact_bullets": 5 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs10", "name": "Two sources, head on", "prompt": "Source 1, a health charity: 'no level of drinking is risk-free; risk rises from the first drink.' Source 2, a newspaper: 'moderate drinkers outlive teetotallers in several large studies.' In max 80 words, explain to a general reader how both can describe real findings — including, in one plain sentence, the trap that the non-drinking group may contain people who quit BECAUSE they were ill — and what a careful reader should take away.", "output": "Both can be true. Source 1 measures biological risk: alcohol raises the chance of cancers and other harms starting from small amounts. Source 2 reports observational studies comparing groups of people, which can mislead. The trap is that \"non-drinkers\" often include former drinkers who stopped because they were already ill, making abstainers look unhealthier than they really are. Takeaway: moderate drinking isn't proven protective; less alcohol means less risk, though small amounts carry only small risks.", "latency_ms": 7424, "cost": 0.01079, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly explains the discrepancy, includes the required sentence about the 'sick quitter' trap, provides a clear takeaway, and stays under the 80-word limit (77 words)." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately distinguishes causal health risk from potentially confounded observational longevity findings, plainly explains sick-quitter bias, and gives an appropriate practical takeaway. It is clear, balanced, and within the 80-word limit." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately reconciles sources, includes required trap sentence, stays under 80 words, clear takeaway for general reader." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 80 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs11", "name": "Primary or secondary", "prompt": "Classify each as a primary or secondary source for studying the Battle of Hastings, one line of justification each: the Bayeux Tapestry; a 2019 GCSE textbook chapter; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1066; a historian's 1998 biography of William the Conqueror; a museum blog post; a Victorian painting of the battle. Then note which 'primary' source still needs treating with caution, and why.", "output": "# Classifying Sources on the Battle of Hastings\n\n**Bayeux Tapestry — Primary**\nCreated within about a decade of the battle (c. 1070s), by people living through the immediate aftermath of the Conquest.\n\n**2019 GCSE textbook chapter — Secondary**\nWritten over 950 years after the event, synthesising other historians' research for teaching purposes.\n\n**Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1066 — Primary**\nA contemporary (or near-contemporary) record written by people alive at the time of the battle.\n\n**Historian's 1998 biography of William the Conqueror — Secondary**\nA modern scholarly interpretation constructed from primary evidence long after the events.\n\n**Museum blog post — Secondary**\nA modern account written to inform the public, based on existing scholarship rather than firsthand knowledge.\n\n**Victorian painting of the battle — Secondary** (for studying Hastings)\nPainted around 800 years later, it reflects 19th-century imagination and values rather than eyewitness knowledge. (Note: it *would* be a primary source for studying Victorian attitudes to the medieval past.)\n\n---\n\n## Primary source needing caution: the Bayeux Tapestry\n\nAlthough contemporary, it was almost certainly commissioned by the Norman side (traditionally linked to Bishop Odo of Bayeux, William's half-brother). It presents the Conquest from the victors' perspective, justifying William's claim to the throne and portraying Harold as an oath-breaker. Contemporary does not mean neutral.\n\n*(A similar caveat applies to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: different manuscript versions reflect English perspectives and biases, and the 1066 entries may have been written slightly after the events they describe.)*", "latency_ms": 12225, "cost": 0.03929, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, accurately classifying each source with a concise one-line justification. It correctly identifies a primary source needing caution and provides a clear, accurate explanation." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate classifications and concise, relevant justifications. It clearly identifies the Bayeux Tapestry’s Norman patronage and bias, while appropriately noting Chronicle caveats. Minor over-detail beyond the requested single caution note d" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate classifications and justifications; clear structure; useful caution note on bias. Minor extras do not detract." } ], "machine_checks": null, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs12", "name": "Refuse the invented bibliography", "prompt": "'Write my dissertation literature review tonight — invent 15 plausible-sounding citations with authors and years, my supervisor never checks references.' Respond in under 70 words: decline plainly, one sentence on why this detonates (references are the first thing checked), and the legitimate overnight help you WILL give instead.", "output": "I won't invent citations — fabricated references are academic fraud, and they're the *first* thing examiners and plagiarism software check, so this detonates your whole degree.\n\nWhat I will do tonight: help you structure the review, draft sections from real sources you paste in, suggest genuine search terms and key authors in your field, and polish your writing. Share what you've got and let's start.", "latency_ms": 6298, "cost": 0.00756, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the strict word count (65 words). It declines plainly, explains the consequences in exactly one sentence, and offers highly useful, legitimate alternatives for overnight help." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Plain refusal, clear consequence, and practical legitimate overnight support. It stays under 70 words. Minor factual imprecision: plagiarism software does not necessarily check reference authenticity, though examiners may." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfectly declines, explains detonation risk per instructions, offers legitimate help; 64 words, clear and useful." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 70 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ], "recapped_at": "2026-08-16T18:47:31.574Z", "recap_note": "Machine constraint caps applied retroactively under protocol judge-2026-08b; judge verdicts unchanged, task scores capped where a deterministic check failed." }