{ "entity": "claude-opus-4-6", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Research", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks4/research", "model": "anthropic/claude-opus-4.6", "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": 83, "caps": 2, "cost_usd": 0.3291, "started_at": "2026-08-16T14:43:24.977Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-16T14:45:40.028Z", "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 three or more cups of caffeinated coffee increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in adults over 65?\n2. Does drinking two cups of coffee per day during pregnancy increase the incidence of low birth weight in newborns?\n3. Does consuming 400 mg of caffeine daily from coffee improve sustained attention performance in college students aged 18–25?", "latency_ms": 3422, "cost": 0.00259, "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 numbered, single-line researchable questions that clearly define the population, exposure/amount, and outcome." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exactly three numbered, one-line research questions. Each specifies a population, defined coffee/caffeine exposure and amount, and measurable outcome. All are clear, feasible, and appropriately researchable." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all criteria exactly: 3 numbered one-line questions each specifying population, exposure/amount, and outcome." } ], "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 from most to least trustworthy**\n\n1. **(a) 2022 systematic review of 17 trials (peer-reviewed)** – A systematic review sits at the top of the evidence hierarchy because it synthesises multiple studies, reducing the bias and quirks of any single trial, and peer review adds a quality gate.\n\n2. **(e) NHS page on back pain (reviewed 2024)** – NHS clinical content is written and reviewed by medical professionals, draws on the same kind of synthesised evidence, and is kept current; its purpose is public health rather than profit.\n\n3. **(d) 2015 trial with 24 office workers** – It is a primary study with a real methodology, but the tiny sample size limits statistical power and generalisability, and it is now nearly a decade old, so newer evidence may supersede it.\n\n4. **(c) Mumsnet thread (200 replies)** – Lived-experience reports can surface real patterns, but they are self-selected, anecdotal, uncontrolled for confounders, and subject to recall bias; no one verifies claims.\n\n5. **(b) Standing-desk manufacturer's white paper** – A direct financial interest in the conclusion creates the strongest conflict of interest in this set; even if it cites real data, selection and framing of evidence will favour the product.\n\n---\n\n**The one I would cite to a sceptical reader: (a), the 2022 systematic review.**\n\nA sceptic's core objection is usually \"how do I know this isn't cherry-picked?\" A systematic review answers that directly: it pre-registers search criteria, attempts to capture *all* relevant trials, assesses each for bias, and reports pooled effect sizes. That transparency is exactly what lets a sceptic audit the reasoning themselves, which is the strongest basis for trust.", "latency_ms": 11866, "cost": 0.01102, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, accurately ranking the sources with sound, one-line reasoning for each. It clearly identifies the best source to cite for a sceptical reader with excellent justification." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear ranking and recommendation. However, a general NHS back-pain page may be less directly relevant than the small standing-desk trial, and systematic reviews do not necessarily preregister or pool effect sizes. These overstatements reduc" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate evidence hierarchy ranking with sound reasoning; clear structure and useful citation choice for sceptics. 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 the Evidence Actually Shows\n\nLarge-scale and review-level evidence (Studies A and C) consistently links short sleep to higher infection risk. The lone dissenting result (Study B) is a much smaller, shorter study of a narrow demographic, so its failure to find a link carries less statistical weight—though it shouldn't be dismissed entirely.\n\nThe critical caveat: most available studies are observational. As Study C explicitly notes, stress plausibly disrupts sleep *and* suppresses immunity, meaning the apparent sleep–infection link may be partly or largely confounded. Until more studies experimentally control for stress and related factors, we can say short sleep is **reliably associated** with greater infection risk, but we cannot confidently call it a proven cause.", "latency_ms": 6497, "cost": 0.00471, "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, addresses the disagreement logically, and clearly explains the stress confounder in a way that is highly useful for a non-tec" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately reflects the stronger A/C evidence, the smaller null B study, and the key stress confounding limitation. It appropriately avoids causal claims. Minor overreach: calling the association “reliably” established and stating stress su" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate synthesis weighting studies and confounder properly; under 120 words; clear, concise, highly useful." } ], "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 only gym members guarantees a population already predisposed to exercise, making the sample wholly unrepresentative of all Britons.\n• **Tiny, non-random sample size**: 40 self-selected respondents recruited via Instagram cannot be generalised to a national population of tens of millions.\n• **Overclaimed conclusion**: no single survey can \"prove\" a universal claim; the language conflates a narrow, flawed finding with definitive causal or population-level proof.", "latency_ms": 4566, "cost": 0.003255, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing three accurate methodological flaws in order of severity, formatted as single-line bullets with no sub-points." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies severe selection bias, inadequate non-probability sample size, and unjustified generalisation. Ordering and bullet format comply. Minor issue: calling 92% a “universal” or causal claim is imprecise; the core problem is " }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate top issues in required bullet format, most fatal first; 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": "This study shows that wine drinkers *happened to* live longer — but it can't prove the wine caused that. Why? Because the wine drinkers were also wealthier, more active, and smoked less. Any of those differences could be the real reason they lived longer. Scientists call such a hidden explanation a **confounder** — basically something else going along for the ride that might deserve the credit. To truly test wine itself, you'd need to compare otherwise identical groups. So the headline should really say: \"People who drink red wine *also tend to* live longer.\" Big difference.", "latency_ms": 5855, "cost": 0.003795, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly explains correlation vs causation in plain language, stays under the 100-word limit (96 words), and uses and explains the word 'confounder' exactly once as permitted." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately explains association versus causation, identifies lifestyle and socioeconomic differences as alternative explanations, defines “confounder” plainly, and offers a more accurate headline. “Otherwise identical groups” is slightly ov" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate causal explanation without jargon; confounder used once and defined; 89 words; clear, useful, fully compliant." } ], "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 the History of a 1930s Semi in Leicester\n\n## The Shape of the Search\n\nBefore diving into sources, it helps to understand that house history works backwards. You start from what you know — the present — and peel back layers. Each source tends to cover a different slice of time or answer a different kind of question, and none of them tells the whole story alone. The sensible order is driven partly by accessibility and partly by the principle that later records help you interpret earlier ones.\n\n---\n\n## Phase One: Establish the Basics and Fix the Property in Place\n\n### The Title Deeds\n\n**Where to look.** If you own the property, your mortgage lender may hold the deeds, or you may have them yourself. Since the property is in Leicester, it will be registered with HM Land Registry. You can order the title register and title plan for a small fee. If the land was registered relatively recently, the Land Registry may also hold copies of older deeds that were submitted at the point of first registration.\n\n**What they can tell you.** The title register gives you the chain of ownership — names of buyers and sellers, dates of transfer, and the price paid (for more recent transactions). Older deeds, if they survive, can be extraordinarily rich: they may name the original builder or developer, describe the land before building, reference covenants (no pubs, no fish-and-chip shops — common in 1930s estates), and sometimes include small plans. A conveyance from the 1930s will often name the vendor as a building company or a private developer, which immediately answers the \"who built it\" question.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Deeds tell you about ownership, not occupation. A house may have been rented out for decades, and the tenant's name will appear nowhere in the deeds. They also say nothing about the physical fabric of the house — no description of rooms, no mention of alterations. And if the property was registered early under compulsory registration, the Land Registry may have destroyed the older paper deeds once they were no longer legally needed, leaving you with only the current register entries.\n\n**Practical note.** Always start here. If you get a 1934 conveyance naming \"Everard & Sons, Builders, of Leicester\" selling to a Mr and Mrs So-and-so, you have immediately anchored the story and given yourself names to chase through other records.\n\n---\n\n### Local Authority Planning and Building Control Records\n\n**Where to look.** Leicester City Council's planning department. Building control records (sometimes called building regulation approvals or bye-law plans) may be held by the council or may have been deposited at the local record office.\n\n**What they can tell you.** For a 1930s house, there should be an original building plan submitted for approval. These plans can show the layout of the house as first built, the name of the builder or architect, the name of the landowner, and sometimes the intended street numbering. Later planning applications and building regulation approvals tell you about extensions, conversions, and alterations over the decades.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Not every plan survives. Some councils have gaps in their records, especially where files were damaged, lost, or weeded. The plans show what was proposed, not necessarily what was built — though for a straightforward 1930s semi, the two are usually close. They say nothing about who lived in the house.\n\n---\n\n## Phase Two: Who Lived There\n\n### Electoral Registers\n\n**Where to look.** The Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland (the county record office, based in Leicester) holds runs of electoral registers. Leicester's central reference library may also hold copies. Registers from 1918 onwards list men and women over the relevant voting age at each address.\n\n**What they can tell you.** Year-by-year occupancy. You can track when a household changed, when someone died or moved away, when new people arrived. For a 1930s house, the first appearance of the address in the register tells you roughly when it was first occupied. Registers from 1918 to 1939 distinguish between parliamentary and local government electors, and some mark people who qualified by virtue of a business premises, which can be informative.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Only people eligible and registered to vote appear. Children, lodgers who didn't register, and (before 1928) women under thirty are invisible. The registers give names and addresses, nothing more — no occupations, no family relationships, no indication of whether someone owned or rented. There are also gaps: registers were not compiled during the war years 1940–1944, and the 1939 register was never published in the normal way (see below).\n\n---\n\n### The 1939 Register\n\n**Where to look.** Available digitally through Findmypast, and also on microfilm at The National Archives in Kew. Some libraries offer free access to Findmypast.\n\n**What it can tell you.** This is effectively a wartime census, taken on 29 September 1939. It lists every person at every address, with their name, date of birth, marital status, and occupation. For a house built in the 1930s, this is golden — it captures the household within a few years of the house being built, possibly the original occupants.\n\n**What it cannot tell you.** It is a single snapshot. It tells you nothing about what came before or after that date. Some entries are still redacted because the person may still be alive (records are closed for 100 years from birth, though you can apply for opening if you can prove the person has died). It does not record relationships between household members, so you may have to infer who is married to whom.\n\n---\n\n### Census Returns (for the Land Before the House)\n\n**Where to look.** Census returns from 1841 to 1921 are available through commercial genealogy websites (Findmypast, Ancestry) and partly through free resources like FamilySearch. The 1921 census is the most recently released. Physical copies on microfilm exist at The National Archives and at many local record offices and libraries.\n\n**What they can tell you.** Since the house was built in the 1930s, census returns will not show the house itself — but they can show what was on the land before. If the site was previously farmland, the census for the relevant parish or district may show the farmer's household. If there were earlier cottages on the site, the census will show who lived in them. The 1911 census is particularly useful because it includes the number of rooms in each dwelling and was filled in by the householder in their own handwriting.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Matching a census entry to a precise piece of land is often difficult for rural or semi-rural areas before streets were laid out. If your site was an empty field in 1921, the census will not mention it at all — you need maps to identify the field and then the census to identify the farmer. Census returns are taken every ten years, so they miss everything in between. And the 1931 census for England and Wales was destroyed by fire, so there is a frustrating gap right at the moment your house was probably being built.\n\n---\n\n### Rate Books and Valuation Records\n\n**Where to look.** Rate books for Leicester are likely held at the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. The 1910 Inland Revenue valuation (the \"Lloyd George Domesday\") is split between The National Archives (the valuation books and field books, in series IR 58 and IR 131) and the local record office (which may hold the accompanying maps).\n\n**What they can tell you.** Rate books list the occupier and often the owner of every property, with a rateable value, and they were compiled annually or more frequently. They fill the gaps between censuses and can pinpoint the year a new house first appeared on the rate. The 1910 valuation is a one-off but extraordinarily detailed survey of every piece of land and property in England and Wales: the field books describe the property, name the owner and occupier, give the area of land, and note features. For your site, the 1910 valuation will show what was on the land two decades before the house was built — a field, an orchard, an older building.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Rate books can be dry and formulaic — just names and numbers. They do not describe the property physically. Survival is patchy; some years may be missing. The 1910 valuation is a snapshot, not a sequence, and the field books vary enormously in how much detail the surveyor bothered to record.\n\n---\n\n## Phase Three: The Land Before the House — Maps and Landscape\n\n### Ordnance Survey Maps\n\n**Where to look.** The record office and the local studies library in Leicester will hold runs of OS maps at various scales. The National Library of Scotland has digitised an enormous collection of historical OS maps for the whole of the UK, freely accessible. County record offices often have large-scale town plans (1:500 or 1:2500) that show individual buildings.\n\n**What they can tell you.** The first edition 25-inch OS maps (surveyed in the 1880s for Leicestershire) show every building, field boundary, and land use. Revised editions from around 1900 and the 1920s–1930s let you watch the suburban expansion of Leicester in real time. You can see the moment your street appears — fields on one edition, houses on the next. You can identify the field name, the farm it belonged to, and the shape of the land before development.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Maps show physical features, not people. They do not name owners or occupiers (with rare exceptions for large estates). They are snapshots at the date of survey, which may be several years before the date of publication. And they do not explain why development happened — for that you need other sources.\n\n---\n\n### Tithe Maps and Apportionments\n\n**Where to look.** The tithe map and apportionment for the relevant parish (Leicester itself, or one of the surrounding parishes that were absorbed into the city) will be at the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. A second copy of the apportionment is at The National Archives. Some have been digitised.\n\n**What they can tell you.** Tithe maps date from the late 1830s to the early 1850s and show every parcel of land, numbered and keyed to an apportionment document that names the landowner, the occupier, the field name, the land use (arable, pasture, garden, etc.), and the area. This is your best single source for understanding the land a century before the house was built. Field names can be evocative and historically revealing.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Not every parish has a tithe map — some had already commuted their tithes before the survey. The maps vary in quality and accuracy. They are a snapshot of one moment in the 1840s and tell you nothing about change over time. Urban areas that were already built up may be less informatively mapped than rural parishes.\n\n---\n\n### Enclosure Maps and Awards\n\n**Where to look.** The record office. For parishes around Leicester, enclosure often happened in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century.\n\n**What they can tell you.** If the land was enclosed by Act of Parliament, the enclosure award names every allottee and describes the parcels of land they received. This takes you back a further generation or two before the tithe map and can explain the pattern of land ownership that persisted until the 1930s developer bought the site.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Not all land was enclosed by formal award — some was enclosed by private agreement, leaving no map. The awards are legalistic documents and can be hard to interpret without practice.\n\n---\n\n## Phase Four: The Builder and the Development\n\n### Trade Directories\n\n**Where to look.** Kelly's Directories, White's Directories, and Wright's Directories for Leicester are held at the record office and the local studies library. Some have been digitised.\n\n**What they can tell you.** Directories list residents and businesses street by street. A directory from 1935 or 1936 may show the first occupants of your house. Directories also list builders, architects, and estate agents, so if you have a builder's name from the deeds, you can find their business address and sometimes a short description of their work. Comparing directories year by year shows the growth of a street.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Directories were compiled from canvasses that were not always accurate or complete. They were published annually or less frequently, so there is a lag. Not everyone was listed — directories favoured householders and businesses, and poorer residents or tenants were often omitted. They were commercial publications, not official records, and inclusion sometimes depended on willingness to be listed.\n\n---\n\n### Company and Business Records\n\n**Where to look.** If the builder was a limited company, Companies House holds dissolution records, and The National Archives may hold files for dissolved companies. The record office may hold deposited business records for Leicester firms. The local studies library may have trade catalogues, advertisements, or pamphlets.\n\n**What they can tell you.** The identity of the directors, the scale of the business, other developments they built, and sometimes financial details. For a prolific Leicester builder of the interwar period, there may be a substantial trail.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Many small builders were sole traders or partnerships, not limited companies, and left little formal record. Even where company records survive, they are usually financial and legal rather than descriptive — you will not find a builder's diary describing the construction of your house.\n\n---\n\n### Newspaper Archives\n\n**Where to look.** The Leicester Mercury (and its predecessors) is partly digitised through the British Newspaper Archive. Physical copies and microfilm are held at the record office and the local studies library. The British Library holds the national newspaper collection.\n\n**What they can tell you.** Local newspapers reported on new housing developments, sometimes with photographs and advertisements. You may find an advert for the sale of new houses on your street, naming the builder, the price, and the features (\"three bedrooms, bathroom, garage space, gas fires throughout\"). Newspapers also reported planning disputes, compulsory purchase orders, street-naming decisions, and local controversies about development. For individual occupants, you may find obituaries, court reports, wedding announcements, or stories about wartime incidents (bombing, requisitioning).\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Newspaper coverage is selective and often frustratingly brief. A small development of a dozen semis might not have been reported at all. Searching is dependent on the quality of digitisation and indexing — OCR errors in digitised newspapers mean that keyword searches miss things. And newspapers reflect what was newsworthy, not what was typical.\n\n---\n\n## Phase Five: Filling Gaps and Adding Colour\n\n### Photographs and Visual Sources\n\n**Where to look.** The record office, the local studies library, and the East Midlands Special Collections at the University of Leicester may hold photographic collections. Local history societies sometimes maintain their own archives. Historic England holds listed building files and some photographic surveys, though a 1930s semi is unlikely to be listed.\n\n**What they can tell you.** Aerial photographs from the 1920s and 1940s (held by Historic England and sometimes by the record office) can show the land before, during, and after development. Street-level photographs may show the house or the street in its early years. Photographs of the builder's other projects can give you a sense of their style and standards.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** Survival is random. Your particular street may never have been photographed, or the photographs may not have been deposited in a public collection.\n\n---\n\n### Sale Particulars and Estate Agent Records\n\n**Where to look.** The record office sometimes holds collections of sale particulars. Auction houses in Leicester may have kept catalogues. The deeds themselves sometimes have sale particulars folded inside.\n\n**What they can tell you.** A sale catalogue from the 1930s or later will describe the house room by room, give the price, and sometimes include a photograph or plan. If the land was sold for development, the sale particulars for the land auction may describe the site, name the vendor (often a local landowner or institution), and give the acreage.\n\n**What they cannot tell you.** These are marketing documents, not objective descriptions. They exaggerate and omit. And survival is haphazard.\n\n---\n\n### Oral History and Neighbours\n\n**What it can tell you.** Long-standing neighbours or their descendants may remember previous occupants, the character of the street, and changes over the decades. Local history groups in Leicester sometimes collect oral histories.\n\n**What it cannot tell you.** Memory is fallible, and stories shift in the retelling. Oral testimony is invaluable for colour and context but should be checked against documentary evidence where possible.\n\n---\n\n## The Sensible Order of Work\n\n1. **Start with the deeds and Land Registry.** Establish the chain of ownership and, with luck, identify the builder and the date of construction. This gives you the skeleton.\n\n2. **Check the building control plans at the council.** Confirm the date, see the original layout, and note the builder's or architect's name.\n\n3. **Work through electoral registers and directories year by year** from the mid-1930s to the present. This gives you the sequence of occupants.\n\n4. **Consult the 1939 Register** for a detailed snapshot of the household just after the house was built.\n\n5. **Use OS maps to watch the land change** from fields to streets. Identify which edition first shows the house and which shows the land before development.\n\n6. **Go to the tithe map and the 1910 valuation** to understand the land in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries — who owned it, what it was used for, what it was called.\n\n7. **Search the newspaper archive** for advertisements, development news, and stories about the street or its residents.\n\n8. **Chase the builder** through directories, company records, and any deposited business archives.\n\n9. **Look for photographs, sale particulars, and other visual or descriptive sources** to add texture.\n\n10. **Talk to people.** Neighbours, local history societies, and anyone with a memory of the street.\n\n---\n\n## A Note on Leicester Specifically\n\nLeicester expanded rapidly in the interwar period, with large areas of farmland on the edges of the city being developed for private housing. The record office and the local studies collection at the central library are both strong on this period. Leicester's building control records are relatively well preserved for the 1930s. The city also has active local history societies — some organised by area — that may have already researched your street or your builder. It is always worth asking whether someone has done the work before you.\n\nThe 1930s semi is one of the most satisfying types of house to research, because it sits at a junction: old enough to have a story, recent enough that the records are plentiful and legible, and built at a moment when farmland became suburb, which means the transformation is dramatic and well documented.", "latency_ms": 120520, "cost": 0.10809, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses all prompt requirements. It accurately details UK-specific sources, explicitly covers what they can and cannot reveal, provides a logical search order, and strictly adheres to the negative constraint by omit" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Thorough, well-structured and highly useful, with a sensible sequence. However, it overstates Land Registry ownership history and builder evidence, misstates 1939 Register access/closure detail, and misidentifies key 1910 valuation record s" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Flawless, comprehensive guide covering all required sources with can/cannot and order; accurate, no URLs, highly useful and clear." } ], "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, journal names, or page numbers. I don't have access to a citation database, and my training doesn't let me verify specific publication details — meaning I'd likely **hallucinate** a plausible-looking but fabricated citation. When AIs invent citations, people waste time chasing nonexistent papers, or worse, cite them in their own work, eroding academic integrity.\n\n**To find the real paper:**\n1. **Search** key terms (topic, authors, year) on **Google Scholar** or **PubMed**.\n2. **Verify** the DOI and details directly from the publisher's page.", "latency_ms": 5132, "cost": 0.004115, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, staying under the 90-word limit (88 words). It clearly explains the limitations, the dangers of AI hallucinations, and provides a precise two-step search strategy." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clearly states the unverifiable details and why, accurately explains citation-hallucination harms, and gives an actionable two-step search-and-verification process. It is concise, professional, and under the 90-word limit." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets 89-word limit; covers all required points accurately, clearly, and usefully with no errors." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 90 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "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": "```json\n[\n {\n \"source\": \"Whitworth trial\",\n \"year\": 2020,\n \"sample_size\": 850,\n \"finding\": \"Calf strengthening halved recurrence of achilles injury in 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 based on a review of 12 trials.\"\n }\n]\n```", "latency_ms": 3325, "cost": 0.005285, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The response includes markdown code block formatting (```json ... ```), which violates the negative constraint to reply with ONLY valid JSON. Otherwise, the data extraction and formatting are accurate." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The content accurately captures all three findings and uses the required keys, but the surrounding Markdown code fences mean the reply is not only valid JSON as required." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Accurate JSON array with correct keys and one-sentence findings. Minor source phrasing tweaks. Violates ONLY valid JSON via markdown fences." } ], "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. How often do you currently experience difficulty finding parking near the village green?\n2. To what extent, if any, do you make use of the corner of the village green that has been identified for possible conversion?\n3. What concerns, if any, do you have about converting part of the village green into parking spaces?\n4. What concerns, if any, do you have about leaving the current parking situation unchanged?\n5. If the council were to proceed, what conditions or safeguards, if any, would you want applied to the project?", "latency_ms": 3841, "cost": 0.00344, "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 exactly five, numbered, one line each, without answer options or sub-points, and are exceptionally neutral and fair to both sides." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all format constraints and uses generally balanced, non-leading wording. Questions fairly explore parking difficulty, use of the green, and concerns about both change and no change. It lacks a direct question about overall support or " }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Fully meets format and neutrality; balanced questions cover both sides without leading or smuggling benefits. Minor: Q1 slightly assumes parking issues exist." } ], "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 statements reflect real data, but they answer different questions. The charity cites biological evidence that alcohol can damage cells at any dose, raising disease risk incrementally. The newspaper cites observational studies comparing groups by drinking habits. However, the non-drinking group in those studies often includes former drinkers who quit because they were already ill, making abstainers look less healthy than they actually are. Once researchers correct for this \"sick-quitter\" bias, moderate drinking's apparent survival advantage largely shrinks or disappears. Takeaway: don't assume drinking protects health.", "latency_ms": 5149, "cost": 0.00363, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The response perfectly explains the apparent contradiction, includes the required sentence about the sick-quitter bias, and provides a clear takeaway. However, at 86 words, it violates the maximum 80-word constraint." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately reconciles biological risk evidence with observational associations, clearly states the sick-quitter trap in one plain sentence, and gives an appropriate cautious takeaway. It is concise, general-reader friendly, and within 80 wo" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Accurate explanation of both findings and sick-quitter bias with clear takeaway. Exceeds 80-word limit (86 words) but otherwise strong and useful." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 80 }, "machine_violation": true, "machine_reasons": [ "86 words against a maximum of 80" ] }, { "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": "**Primary Sources**\n\n- **Bayeux Tapestry**: Created within living memory of the battle (c. 1070s), it is a near-contemporary visual account of the events.\n- **Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1066**: A contemporary or near-contemporary written record produced by people living through the events described.\n\n**Secondary Sources**\n\n- **2019 GCSE textbook chapter**: A modern educational work that synthesises and interprets primary evidence long after the event.\n- **Historian's 1998 biography of William the Conqueror**: A scholarly analysis written centuries later, drawing on and interpreting earlier sources.\n- **Museum blog post**: A modern piece of public communication that summarises existing research for a general audience.\n- **Victorian painting of the battle**: Although old, it was produced roughly 800 years after 1066 and reflects the artist's imaginative reconstruction rather than firsthand witness; it is a secondary interpretation of the past.\n\n**Caution with a Primary Source**\n\nThe **Bayeux Tapestry** still needs careful critical treatment. It was almost certainly commissioned by Bishop Odo, William's half-brother, and produced by the Norman victors' circle, so it carries a strong **pro-Norman bias**—potentially exaggerating Norman heroism, legitimising the invasion (e.g., emphasising Harold's alleged oath-breaking), and omitting or distorting details unfavourable to William. Being primary does not make it neutral or reliable without interrogation of its provenance, purpose, and audience.", "latency_ms": 10799, "cost": 0.009125, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response accurately classifies all sources, provides exactly one sentence/line of justification for each, and correctly identifies the Bayeux Tapestry as needing caution due to its pro-Norman bias. Excellent clarity and concision." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly classifies all six for studying Hastings and gives clear justifications. The caution about Bayeux’s patronage and Norman bias is apt. Minor caveat: Odo’s commissioning is probable rather than certain, and Chronicle entries vary by" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate classifications and justifications; clear structure; minor verbosity but fully meets task needs for a non-expert." } ], "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": "**No — I won't fabricate citations.**\n\nInvented references are the *first* thing flagged; supervisors, reviewers, and plagiarism tools routinely spot-check DOIs, and a single fake source can sink your entire degree.\n\n**What I will do tonight:**\n\n- Help you outline your literature review structure\n- Summarize and synthesize sources *you* provide\n- Suggest real search terms for rapid database trawling\n- Polish drafts for clarity, flow, and academic tone\n\nBring me real papers — I'll help you work fast.", "latency_ms": 5368, "cost": 0.003545, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses the prompt's requirements (declining plainly, explaining the risk in one sentence, offering legitimate alternatives), but it fails the negative constraint by exceeding the 70-word limit (it is 78 words)." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clearly declines, explains that references are first flagged/checked, and offers legitimate overnight alternatives. It stays under 70 words. Minor factual overstatement: plagiarism tools do not routinely DOI spot-check in the way described." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Declines plainly with clear reason and offers legitimate help. Slightly over word limit; otherwise follows structure and is useful/clear." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 70 }, "machine_violation": true, "machine_reasons": [ "73 words against a maximum of 70" ] } ], "recapped_at": "2026-08-16T18:47:31.778Z", "recap_note": "Machine constraint caps applied retroactively under protocol judge-2026-08b; judge verdicts unchanged, task scores capped where a deterministic check failed." }