{ "entity": "deepseek-v4-flash", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Research", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks4/research", "model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash", "judges": [ "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "openai/gpt-5.6-terra" ], "judge_protocol": "judge-2026-08b", "anchors": "solo-2026-08-a", "score": 89, "caps": 0, "cost_usd": 0.1352, "started_at": "2026-08-16T14:47:23.131Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-16T14:49:00.047Z", "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. In healthy adults aged 18-65, does consuming 4 or more cups of caffeinated coffee per day compared to non-consumption increase the 10-year risk of developing hypertension? \n2. In pregnant women, does consuming 200-300 mg of caffeine daily from coffee compared to no caffeine during the first trimester increase the risk of spontaneous abortion? \n3. In postmenopausal women, does long-term consumption of 3 or more cups of decaffeinated coffee per day compared to no coffee consumption reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes?", "latency_ms": 5119, "cost": 0.0000630784, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all criteria: 3 numbered questions, each specifying population, exposure/amount, and outcome; clear, concise, researchable." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing exactly 3 well-structured, researchable questions that clearly define the population, exposure/amount, and outcome on single lines without sub-points." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All three are numbered, single-line, researchable questions with populations, quantified exposures, comparators, and outcomes. Minor precision issues: “long-term” is undefined, and the second comparison is no caffeine rather than no coffee." } ], "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": "Most to least trustworthy:\n\n1. **(a)** – A 2022 systematic review of 17 trials in a peer-reviewed journal is the highest-level evidence, directly focused on the question. \n2. **(e)** – An NHS page on back pain last reviewed in 2024 is authoritative and current, but more general than a systematic review. \n3. **(d)** – A 2015 trial with only 24 office workers is direct primary evidence, but small and dated. \n4. **(b)** – A standing-desk manufacturer’s white paper is likely biased by commercial interest and is not peer-reviewed. \n5. **(c)** – A Mumsnet thread is anecdotal opinion, not evidence.\n\nI would cite **(a)**, the 2022 systematic review, to a sceptical reader, because it synthesises 17 trials, is peer-reviewed, recent, and directly addresses whether standing desks reduce back pain — making it the strongest defence against cherry-picking or bias.", "latency_ms": 19506, "cost": 0.00025557, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, well-reasoned ranking with clear justification and final citation choice; concise, clear, meets task fully." }, { "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 correctly identifies the best source to cite with a strong justification." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly ranks the systematic review first and identifies commercial bias and anecdote appropriately. The NHS-versus-small-trial ordering is defensible, though the NHS page may be less directly informative about standing desks than the tri" } ], "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": "We know short sleep (<6 hours) is consistently linked to higher infection risk, as shown in a large 2021 study (20% more colds) and a 2023 review of 40 studies. However, the evidence is not unanimous: a 2019 study of 300 students found no significant association. **The crucial, unresolved confounder is stress**, which the 2023 review noted most studies could not rule out. Stress itself disrupts sleep and suppresses immunity, meaning short sleep may partly be a marker—not a cause—of risk. So while the correlation appears real, a causal claim remains uncertain. Better-controlled studies separating stress effects are needed.", "latency_ms": 10059, "cost": 0.0000315714, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, honest about confounder and disagreement, within word limit (~100 words), good for non-technical reader; minor style with bold text." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, and perfectly balances the evidence, disagreement, and confounding factor (stress) within the 120-word limit. Highly useful for a busy professional." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately synthesizes all three studies, clearly notes the smaller null study, and gives stress appropriate weight as a major unresolved confounder. It avoids overstating causation, is useful and concise, and stays within 120 words." } ], "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": "- Non-representative sample: Surveying only 40 gym members from a single, trendy London gym cannot represent all Britons.\n- Selection bias: Recruiting via the gym's Instagram page attracts people already enthusiastic about exercise, skewing results.\n- Leading claim: The press release uses \"proves\" for a tiny, self-selected sample, ignoring basic statistical validity.", "latency_ms": 2719, "cost": 0.00001944, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, follows format with three single-line bullets, ordered sensibly by severity. Minor: third point slightly conflates two issues but still valid." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, identifying the three most critical methodological flaws in a concise, single-line bulleted format without sub-points. The order logically presents the most fatal flaw first." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies non-representativeness and self-selection. Third point is less clearly a distinct methodological flaw, overlaps earlier issues, and “leading claim” is imprecise; small sample size should have been stated more directly." } ], "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": "The study shows a link between red wine and longer life, but it can’t prove wine is the cause. The wine drinkers were also richer, exercised more, and smoked less — these factors could explain their lower death rate. A “confounder” is something else that influences the result, like wealth or health habits. So we can’t be sure wine itself helps; it might just be a sign of a healthier lifestyle.", "latency_ms": 4517, "cost": 0.00002947, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, jargon explained once, within word limit, useful for a layperson." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, staying well under the word limit. It explains the concept clearly without jargon, correctly uses and defines 'confounder' exactly once, and accurately conveys correlation versus causation to" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately explains association versus causation, identifies the relevant alternative explanations, defines “confounder” plainly, and stays well under 100 words in accessible language." } ], "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-detached house in Leicester is a rewarding project. The key is to work backwards in time, using a mix of public records and local archives. Below I break down the main sources, what each can and cannot tell you, and a sensible order to follow.\n\n---\n\n### 1. Old Maps (to see what stood on the land before the house)\n\n**What they can tell you:**\n- The previous land use (fields, orchards, a previous building, a lane, etc.) before the 1930s development.\n- The date when the street first appears (e.g., on Ordnance Survey maps revised in the 1920s vs. 1930s).\n- The layout of the estate – often 1930s semis were built on former farmland or large gardens of Victorian villas.\n\n**What they cannot tell you:**\n- Who built the house or who lived there.\n- Exact ownership details (though some large-scale maps show plot boundaries).\n\n**Where to find them:**\n- **Leicestershire & Rutland Record Office** (in Wigston) holds historic Ordnance Survey maps, tithe maps (pre-1850s), and estate maps.\n- **Leicester Local Studies Library** (Bishop Street) has a large collection of local maps, including 25-inch OS maps from the 1880s–1940s.\n- **The National Archives** (Kew) holds the master set of OS maps, but local copies are easier.\n- Online: the **National Library of Scotland** website has free zoomable historic OS maps (though you said no URLs – just know it exists).\n\n**Tip:** Look for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition OS maps (c.1880s–1920s) to see the land before building. The 1930s revision will show the new street.\n\n---\n\n### 2. Deeds and Land Registry Records (to find the builder and ownership chain)\n\n**What they can tell you:**\n- The original builder (often named in the first conveyance or building lease).\n- The date the house was built and first sold.\n- A chain of owners (though often only from the 1930s onward, not earlier land use).\n- Any restrictive covenants (e.g., “no trade” or “only one house per plot”).\n\n**What they cannot tell you:**\n- Who lived there as tenants (deeds only record owners, not occupants).\n- The previous land use (unless the deed mentions a field name or previous owner).\n\n**Where to find them:**\n- **HM Land Registry** – if the property is registered (most are since the 1990s, but older ones may still be unregistered). You can request a **Title Register** and **Title Plan** for a small fee. This shows current owner and any entries since first registration (often from the 1970s–1990s). It may not show the original 1930s builder.\n- **Original deeds** – often held by the current owner’s solicitor, or by the owner themselves. If you are the owner, check your own paperwork. If not, ask the current owner if they have the “title deeds” (a bundle of old parchment or paper documents).\n- **Leicestershire & Rutland Record Office** – sometimes solicitors deposit old deed bundles. Search their catalogue for the street name or a nearby estate.\n- **Local history society** – some have transcribed deeds for specific developments.\n\n**Limitation:** Deeds rarely survive for every house, and the 1930s builder may be a small local firm that left few records.\n\n---\n\n### 3. Census Records and Electoral Registers (to find who lived there)\n\n**What they can tell you:**\n- The names, ages, occupations, and family relationships of occupants at each census (1911, 1921, 1939 Register, 1951, 1961, etc.).\n- The 1939 Register (taken at the outbreak of WWII) is especially useful for 1930s houses – it lists every resident, their birth date, and occupation.\n- Electoral registers (from 1918 onward) give annual lists of voters at the address (but only those aged 21+ and later 18+).\n\n**What they cannot tell you:**\n- Who built the house (unless the first occupant was the builder himself).\n- The land use before the house (census only records people, not land).\n- Tenants who were not on the electoral roll (e.g., lodgers or short-term renters may be missed).\n\n**Where to find them:**\n- **Census returns (1841–1921)** – available at **The National Archives** (Kew) and online via subscription sites (Ancestry, Findmypast). The 1921 census is only online via Findmypast. The 1931 census was destroyed by fire; the 1941 census was never taken.\n- **1939 Register** – online via Findmypast (subscription) or at **The National Archives** in person.\n- **Electoral registers** – held at **Leicester Local Studies Library** (annual volumes from 1918 to present, with gaps during WWII). Also at **Leicestershire & Rutland Record Office**.\n- **Local studies library** also holds street directories (e.g., Kelly’s Directory) which list householders by street – useful for years between censuses.\n\n**Tip:** Start with the 1939 Register to get the first known occupants. Then work backwards to the 1921 census – if the house wasn’t built yet, the address won’t appear (confirming the build date).\n\n---\n\n### 4. Local Archives (planning, building control, and estate records)\n\n**What they can tell you:**\n- **Building plans** – if the house was built after 1850, the local authority may have approved plans showing the architect, builder, and date. For 1930s semis, Leicester City Council’s building control records often survive.\n- **Planning applications** – later extensions or changes, but also the original estate layout (e.g., “development of 50 houses on land off X Road”).\n- **Rate books** – annual lists of property owners/occupiers for local taxation. These can fill gaps between censuses and show who paid the rates (owner or tenant).\n- **Estate papers** – if the land was part of a large estate (e.g., the Earl of Leicester’s), the estate archive may have leases and maps.\n\n**What they cannot tell you:**\n- Personal stories of the occupants (unless they appear in other records).\n- The builder’s name if the plans are missing (many were destroyed).\n\n**Where to find them:**\n- **Leicester City Council Archives** (part of the Record Office) – holds building plans from the 1870s onwards, but access may require an appointment. Search for “Leicester building plans” in their catalogue.\n- **Leicestershire & Rutland Record Office** – holds rate books, estate papers, and some planning registers.\n- **The National Archives** – for major estate records (e.g., the Hastings family of Donington Park).\n\n**Limitation:** Not all building plans survive, and those that do may be indexed by street name or plot number, not by house number.\n\n---\n\n### 5. Newspaper Archives (for stories about the house, builder, or area)\n\n**What they can tell you:**\n- Advertisements for the new estate (“New semi-detached houses for sale on X Road, built by Y & Co.”).\n- Reports of local events (e.g., a murder, a famous resident, a street party).\n- Obituaries of the builder or original owners.\n- Planning disputes or changes to the area.\n\n**What they cannot tell you:**\n- A complete list of occupants (newspapers are selective).\n- The land use before the house (unless there was a news story about the farm or field).\n\n**Where to find them:**\n- **British Newspaper Archive** (online, subscription) – includes the *Leicester Mercury*, *Leicester Chronicle*, *Leicester Daily Post*, and local editions.\n- **Leicester Local Studies Library** – holds microfilm of local newspapers from the 18th century to present. You can search by date range and browse.\n- **The British Library** (Newspaper Reading Room, Boston Spa) – for national papers that might mention the builder.\n\n**Tip:** Search for the street name, the builder’s name (once you find it), or the estate name (e.g., “Western Park Estate”, “Braunstone Estate”) in the 1920s–1930s.\n\n---\n\n### Sensible Order to Work\n\n1. **Start with old maps** – get a quick visual of the land before 1930. This tells you if it was a field, a farm, or a demolished building. It also confirms the approximate build date (when the street first appears).\n\n2. **Check the 1939 Register** – this gives you the first known occupants (often the original buyers). Note their names and occupations – they may be the builder or a relative.\n\n3. **Search local newspapers** for the street name or estate name in the 1930s. Look for advertisements or articles about the development. This often reveals the builder’s name.\n\n4. **Look for deeds** – if you are the owner, find your own title deeds. If not, ask the current owner. Alternatively, request a Land Registry title register (it may mention the first registration date). For unregistered land, the Record Office may have old deed bundles.\n\n5. **Visit the local archives** – with the builder’s name and approximate date, search for building plans (Leicester City Council) and rate books. The rate books will show the first ratepayer (often the builder or first owner).\n\n6. **Fill in occupants** using census records (1921, 1911 – but the house won’t be there) and electoral registers (annual from 1918). Street directories (Kelly’s) can fill gaps between censuses.\n\n7. **Deepen with newspapers** – once you have names, search for obituaries, marriage notices, or local news about those people.\n\n8. **Optional: oral history** – if any neighbours or descendants of the builder are still in the area, a local history society may have recorded interviews.\n\n---\n\n### Summary of Key Places in Leicester/UK\n\n- **Leicestershire & Rutland Record Office** – maps, deeds, rate books, estate papers, electoral registers.\n- **Leicester Local Studies Library** – maps, street directories, electoral registers, local newspapers (microfilm).\n- **Leicester City Council Archives** (same building as Record Office) – building plans, planning registers.\n- **The National Archives** (Kew) – census returns, 1939 Register, national maps, some estate papers.\n- **HM Land Registry** – for the official title register (online application).\n- **British Newspaper Archive** (online) – searchable local newspapers.\n\n**Remember:** Always start with what you already know (the address, approximate build date) and work backwards. Be patient – 1930s semis are common, but records can be patchy. Good luck!", "latency_ms": 84005, "cost": 0.0013975, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, thorough, well-organized, follows no-URL instruction, gives sensible order and UK-specific sources. Minor: mentions NLS website despite no-URL request, slight verbosity." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses all instructions, detailing the specific sources, their capabilities and limitations, and a logical workflow. It accurately references Leicester-specific archives and strictly adheres to the negative constra" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Thorough, well structured and mostly useful, with a sensible workflow. However, it wrongly implies 1951 and 1961 censuses are available, and overstates certainty about local building-plan holdings/access. Some institutional descriptions are" } ], "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 cannot reliably provide the DOI, journal, or page numbers for that study. I lack access to a real-time, verified database of academic publications. If I were to invent these details, I could create a convincing but entirely false citation, wasting your time and potentially harming your research credibility. To find the real paper yourself: first, search a specific phrase from the study (e.g., \"sleep latency and blue light 2021\") in Google Scholar or PubMed. Second, copy the article title from results into a library database or DOI lookup tool.", "latency_ms": 12606, "cost": 0.0000241122, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, correct, addresses hallucination risk, gives two-step search method. Slightly over ideal brevity but within 90 words; concise and useful for non-technical reader." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the strict 90-word limit (89 words). It clearly explains the limitations, the dangers of AI hallucinations, and provides a practical two-step search strategy." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "It directly states the missing verified details, explains the risk of fabricated citations, and provides two practical search steps within 90 words. Minor weakness: the second destination is generic; naming Crossref or a specific DOI lookup" } ], "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": "[\n {\n \"source\": \"Whitworth trial\",\n \"year\": 2020,\n \"sample_size\": 850,\n \"finding\": \"Calf strengthening halved recurrence of achilles injury.\"\n },\n {\n \"source\": \"Running magazine survey\",\n \"year\": 2017,\n \"sample_size\": 3200,\n \"finding\": \"61% had been injured that year.\"\n },\n {\n \"source\": \"Meffert and Cole\",\n \"year\": 2023,\n \"sample_size\": 12,\n \"finding\": \"The evidence that stretching prevents injury is weak.\"\n }\n]", "latency_ms": 8501, "cost": 0.0001000384, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate JSON array, correct keys, sample_size for Meffert should note 12 trials not participants but minor. Clean, concise, matches instructions." }, { "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 one-sentence findings. The data is accurately extracted from the prompt." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Valid JSON array with all required keys. It accurately preserves each source, year, stated count, and conclusion; each finding is one sentence. Clear and concise." } ], "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. What is your opinion on the proposal to convert a corner of the village green into 6 parking spaces? \n2. What benefits or drawbacks do you see in this proposal? \n3. How do you think this proposal would affect the village green and its use? \n4. Are there any aspects of the proposal that you would like to see changed or kept the same? \n5. What factors should the parish council consider when making a decision on this proposal?", "latency_ms": 13238, "cost": 0.00017853, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Questions are neutral, numbered 1-5, one line each, no answer options, no leading language. Well-formed and useful, minor redundancy but meets constraints well." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions. It provides exactly 5 numbered, single-line questions with no answer options or sub-points. The wording is completely neutral and avoids leading the respondent." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Provides exactly five numbered, one-line, open-ended questions. All are neutral, avoid leading language and answer options, and invite views from both supporters and opponents." } ], "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 findings can be true: any drinking does slightly raise risk of certain diseases, yet moderate drinkers may live longer in studies because the “non-drinking” group includes people who quit **because** they were already ill. That bias makes teetotallers seem less healthy. A careful reader should remember that correlation isn’t causation and that small risks accumulate.", "latency_ms": 2736, "cost": 0.0000300608, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, includes required plain sentence on sick-quitter bias, within word limit; slightly light on 'takeaway' clarity but solid overall." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the word count constraint and the specific sentence requirement. It clearly and concisely explains the sick-quitter bias and provides a practical takeaway for a general audience." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately reconciles disease risk with observational-study bias and gives the required illness-quitting explanation. Clear and concise. Minor imprecision: calling former drinkers “teetotallers” can blur the distinction between lifelong abs" } ], "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": "Here is the classification with one-line justifications, followed by the note on caution.\n\n- **Bayeux Tapestry:** **Primary** – it is a contemporary visual narrative created within a generation of the battle, likely by those with direct knowledge of the events.\n- **2019 GCSE textbook chapter:** **Secondary** – it is a modern educational summary synthesizing earlier research for students.\n- **Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1066:** **Primary** – it is a near-contemporary written record, with entries likely composed within a few years of the battle.\n- **Historian's 1998 biography of William the Conqueror:** **Secondary** – it is an analytical work of modern scholarship interpreting primary sources.\n- **Museum blog post:** **Secondary** – it is a contemporary, informal interpretation aimed at a general audience, not an original record.\n- **Victorian painting of the battle:** **Secondary** – it is a 19th-century artistic interpretation created centuries after the event.\n\n**Primary source requiring caution:** The **Bayeux Tapestry**. \n**Why:** It was commissioned by the Normans (specifically Bishop Odo, William’s half-brother) and is a piece of propaganda that deliberately glorifies the Norman victory while omitting or distorting Anglo-Saxon perspectives and events (e.g., it does not show Harold Godwinson’s earlier oath to William, which the Normans claimed justified the invasion).", "latency_ms": 5510, "cost": 0.00006228, "task_score": 6, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate classifications and justifications; caution note well-explained. Slightly could also flag Anglo-Saxon Chronicle bias, but task only asked one source. Clear, concise, useful." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Follows all instructions and formatting, but contains a significant factual error: the Bayeux Tapestry famously *does* depict Harold's oath to William, contrary to the claim in the final paragraph." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Classifications are broadly correct and the requested structure is followed. However, the Bayeux Tapestry does depict Harold’s oath to William; claiming it omits this is a significant factual error. Odo’s commissioning is also probable rath" } ], "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. Fabricating citations is academic fraud—supervisors often spot-check references first. Instead, I can help you outline your literature review, locate real sources via Google Scholar, or proofread your draft tonight.", "latency_ms": 2610, "cost": 0.000038533, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets word limit, declines clearly, gives reason, offers legitimate help. Concise and accurate, minor room for more detail but solid." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfectly follows all instructions. Declines plainly, explains the risk in one sentence, offers legitimate alternatives, and stays well under the 70-word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Plainly declines fabrication, explains that references are often checked first, and offers legitimate overnight alternatives. It is concise, professional, useful, and well under 70 words." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 70 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ], "recapped_at": "2026-08-16T18:47:32.313Z", "recap_note": "Machine constraint caps applied retroactively under protocol judge-2026-08b; judge verdicts unchanged, task scores capped where a deterministic check failed." }