{ "entity": "gpt-5-6-luna", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Research", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks4/research", "model": "openai/gpt-5.6-luna", "judges": [ "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "x-ai/grok-4.5" ], "judge_protocol": "judge-2026-08b", "anchors": "solo-2026-08-a", "score": 96, "caps": 0, "cost_usd": 0.1633, "started_at": "2026-08-16T14:55:08.736Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-16T14:55:51.707Z", "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. Among healthy adults aged 18–65, does consuming 3 or more cups of caffeinated coffee per day, compared with none, affect the incidence of hypertension over five years? \n2. Among pregnant adults, does consuming at least 200 mg of caffeine from coffee per day, compared with less than 50 mg, affect the rate of preterm birth? \n3. Among adults aged 40–75, does consuming 2–4 cups of brewed coffee per day, compared with no coffee, affect all-cause mortality over ten years?", "latency_ms": 2440, "cost": 0.0001472, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets format exactly: 3 numbered questions, each specifying population, exposure/amount, and outcome; clear and concise, no sub-points." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing exactly three well-formulated, researchable questions that clearly specify the population, exposure/amount, and outcome on single lines without sub-points." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exactly 3 numbered one-line questions; each clearly specifies population, exposure/amount, and measurable 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": "1. **(a) 2022 systematic review of 17 trials** — Best overall evidence because it synthesises multiple controlled studies, although its reliability depends on the quality and consistency of those trials. \n2. **(d) 2015 trial with 24 office workers** — Directly tests standing desks, but the small sample and older date limit confidence and generalisability. \n3. **(e) NHS page on back pain, reviewed 2024** — Highly credible and current for general back-pain guidance, but it may not directly evaluate whether standing desks reduce pain. \n4. **(b) Standing-desk manufacturer’s white paper** — May contain useful information, but commercial sponsorship creates a strong risk of selective reporting or promotional bias. \n5. **(c) Mumsnet thread with 200 replies** — Offers many personal experiences but no control group, representative sampling, or reliable way to distinguish correlation from cause.\n\n**I would cite (a)** to a sceptical reader because it directly addresses the intervention and combines evidence from 17 trials, making it substantially more informative than a single small study or anecdotal and commercial sources.", "latency_ms": 4680, "cost": 0.0002559, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct ranking, sound reasoning, clear format, directly answers which source to cite with justification. 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, providing a logical ranking with concise, one-line reasoning for each source. It clearly identifies the best source to cite and provides a strong justification. Excellent clarity and usefulne" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Excellent ranking and reasoning matching evidence hierarchy; cites best source clearly. Minor nit on NHS placement vs specificity." } ], "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": "Evidence generally suggests that sleeping under six hours is associated with a higher risk of infection: a large five-year study found a 20% higher rate of colds, and a 2023 review reported a broadly consistent link across 40 studies. However, a smaller study of 300 students found no significant association, so the finding is not universal and may depend on population or measurement. More importantly, most evidence is observational and cannot establish that short sleep itself causes illness. Stress is a plausible confounder because it can both disrupt sleep and increase susceptibility to infection. Thus, short sleep is a credible risk marker, but the size—and even part of the causal effect—remains uncertain.", "latency_ms": 3299, "cost": 0.0001227, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, balances disagreement and confounder well, under 120 words, clear and useful for non-technical reader." }, { "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 reflects the general consensus, acknowledges the conflicting smaller study, and clearly explains the stress confounder, making it highly useful an" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate balanced summary under 120 words; weighs disagreement and stress confounder properly; clear and 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": "- The sample is a self-selected convenience group of one Shoreditch gym’s Instagram followers, not representative of Britons.\n- Only 40 respondents were surveyed, so 92% likely reflects about 37 people and has very large statistical uncertainty.\n- “Love exercising” is undefined, and without the exact question, response rate, or analysis, the reported percentage cannot be independently evaluated.", "latency_ms": 4281, "cost": 0.0001769, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, follows format with 3 bullets, most fatal first, no sub-points. Minor debate on ordering but solid overall." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly identifies the three biggest methodological flaws in order of severity, adhering to all constraints including bullet points, one line each, and no sub-points." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfect identification of bias, size, and measurement issues in priority order; exact format followed; clear and 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 found that wine drinkers died less often over 10 years, but it does not prove that wine made them live longer. They may also have been wealthier, exercised more and smoked less—differences that could explain some or all of the result. These are sometimes called confounders: other factors linked to both drinking wine and health. Researchers can try to allow for them, but they may miss important differences. The study shows an association, not cause and effect. It also doesn’t tell us whether drinking wine is beneficial, how much would help, or whether the result applies to everyone.", "latency_ms": 2628, "cost": 0.0001162, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, accurate, jargon-free, uses 'confounder' once with explanation, within word limit, useful and concise." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly explains the limitations of the observational study in plain language. It stays under the 100-word limit (99 words), uses 'confounders' exactly once with a clear explanation, and is highly useful and accessible." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Accurate plain-language explanation of association vs causation and residual differences. Clear, useful, nearly perfect; one extra word over limit." } ], "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": "A sensible investigation treats the house as a changing **plot, address and legal title**, rather than assuming that its present number has always been the same. In Leicester, start by establishing whether it lies within Leicester City or Leicestershire County: the relevant council and archive holdings differ.\n\n## 1. Establish the property precisely\n\nBefore searching for people or maps, record:\n\n- full present address and postcode;\n- approximate location on a current map;\n- neighbouring houses, road junctions and plot boundaries;\n- parish, ward and historic registration district;\n- any old names, numbers or estate names;\n- whether the house is a mirror-image semi, part of a terrace, or one of a planned estate.\n\nHouse numbers can change, and a road may have been extended or renamed. The adjoining house, builder’s name and plot position are often more useful than the modern number.\n\nUseful starting points are:\n\n- **HM Land Registry** title register and title plan;\n- the local council’s planning and building-control records;\n- Leicester City Archives or the Leicestershire and Leicester Record Office, depending on location;\n- Leicester’s local studies collections and libraries.\n\n## 2. Who built it?\n\n### Land Registry and conveyancing deeds\n\nThe current title register may show:\n\n- the present and recent owners;\n- dates of registration and transfers;\n- the original developer or estate company;\n- restrictive covenants;\n- references to earlier conveyances;\n- rights of way, shared drives and service arrangements.\n\nThe title plan helps confirm the plot, but is usually not a detailed architectural plan.\n\nAsk whether the title has **filed deeds or historical documents**. Older conveyances can be much more informative than the short modern register. They may name:\n\n- the person who sold the land;\n- the builder or developer;\n- the estate owner;\n- the architect;\n- the original purchaser;\n- the date and price of the transaction;\n- covenants requiring particular types of house to be built;\n- rights relating to drains, roads and boundaries.\n\nLimitations:\n\n- Land Registry registration was not universal in the 1930s and may have occurred only later.\n- The register may preserve only a summary, not the original deeds.\n- The earliest conveyance may describe the land by field names rather than by a house number.\n- A builder named in a deed may have been the developer or contractor, not necessarily the architect or person who physically constructed the house.\n\nIf the title is old, unregistered, closed or difficult to trace, a solicitor’s or previous owner’s bundle of deeds can be valuable. Ask current or former owners, if appropriate, and check whether a conveyancer retained historical papers.\n\n### Planning and building-control files\n\nThe relevant council may hold:\n\n- planning applications;\n- estate layout plans;\n- house-type drawings;\n- elevations and floor plans;\n- applications for roads, drainage and utilities;\n- building-control inspection records;\n- completion certificates;\n- names of owners, builders, architects or developers.\n\nFor a 1930s semi, building-control files are often the best evidence of when construction actually took place. Planning permission was not always required in the modern sense, however, and records are incomplete. Some files may have been destroyed under retention policies, while others may survive only as index cards or registers.\n\nSearch by:\n\n- the present address;\n- former address or road name;\n- plot number;\n- estate name;\n- builder or development company;\n- neighbouring properties.\n\nA whole estate may have been approved under one application, so the file for the next-door house or the estate road can matter.\n\n### Local newspapers and trade directories\n\nNewspapers may report:\n\n- land auctions;\n- planning objections;\n- new estate developments;\n- advertisements by builders;\n- sales of “modern houses”;\n- disputes over roads, drains or building work;\n- completion or opening of a new estate.\n\nLook in Leicester newspapers and regional papers for the road name, builder’s name, estate name and nearby streets, not just the house number. Building-trade journals and architectural publications may sometimes identify the developer or architect.\n\nDirectories such as Kelly’s, street directories and commercial directories can show when a builder, estate agent or developer was operating locally. They rarely prove that a particular firm built a specific house, but they can corroborate other evidence.\n\n### Estate papers and sale particulars\n\nIf the house formed part of a larger development, search for:\n\n- estate agents’ sale particulars;\n- auction catalogues;\n- land-sale notices;\n- developer’s brochures;\n- estate plans;\n- company records;\n- architect’s drawings;\n- papers of local landowners or builders.\n\nThese may survive in local archives, the county record office, a university special collection, the National Archives, or a specialist architectural or business archive.\n\nSale particulars can be especially useful because they may show the original plot layout, house type, price and developer. They are not always dated precisely and may describe a proposed development rather than a completed one.\n\n## 3. Who lived there?\n\n### Electoral registers\n\nElectoral registers are usually the most useful source for the period after the house was occupied. They can show eligible voters at a particular address, often annually or at regular intervals.\n\nThey can reveal:\n\n- the first occupants;\n- married couples and other adult household members;\n- changes of residents;\n- whether the house was owner-occupied or occupied by tenants;\n- names at neighbouring addresses, which helps resolve numbering problems.\n\nLimitations:\n\n- they generally omit children;\n- not every adult was entitled to vote in earlier periods;\n- lodgers, servants and temporary residents may be absent or inconsistently recorded;\n- wartime and local coverage can be incomplete;\n- registers may list only surnames and initials;\n- a new house may not appear until the next compiled register.\n\nRepositories include local studies libraries, local archives and, in some cases, commercial genealogy databases. The physical electoral-register series may be arranged by polling district rather than neatly by street.\n\n### Census records\n\nFor Leicester and England and Wales:\n\n- 1841–1911 census returns are publicly available;\n- the 1921 census is the latest full census currently released;\n- the 1931 census for England and Wales was destroyed by fire;\n- there was no 1941 census;\n- the 1939 Register is useful but has continuing privacy closures for some individuals.\n\nFor a 1930s house, the 1921 census may show the previous occupants of the land or nearby older buildings, but not the house itself. The 1939 Register can often identify the household living there at the beginning of the Second World War, although entries may be redacted or altered.\n\nCensus records can tell you household composition, occupations, birthplaces and relationships. They cannot normally prove who owned a property, and a census date may fall before occupation, during a vacancy or after a move.\n\n### The 1939 Register\n\nThis is particularly important for a 1930s property. It may provide:\n\n- the first or an early household;\n- dates of birth;\n- occupations;\n- later amendments showing changes in status or surname.\n\nIt is not a straightforward census. Some people are closed for privacy reasons, addresses may be abbreviated, and the register records a single point in time rather than a complete residential history.\n\n### Street and trade directories\n\nAnnual or irregular directories can show residents by address and are useful for filling gaps between census and electoral-register dates. They may also distinguish private residents from businesses.\n\nThey are imperfect because:\n\n- inclusion was not universal;\n- information could be out of date;\n- directories often used initials;\n- residents could be missed or listed at an old address;\n- houses under construction or recently occupied may not appear.\n\n### Newspapers, probate and other personal records\n\nLocal newspapers can provide:\n\n- house sales and removals;\n- marriage and death notices;\n- court reports;\n- bankruptcies;\n- advertisements;\n- obituaries;\n- accidents and local events tied to an address.\n\nProbate calendars and wills can sometimes confirm ownership, addresses and family relationships. They are more useful once a name and approximate date are known. They do not form a complete list of residents.\n\nOther possible sources include:\n\n- rate books;\n- valuation lists;\n- school admission registers;\n- parish magazines;\n- church records;\n- business records;\n- war memorial and service records;\n- property-tax or mortgage papers.\n\nThese are usually fragmentary and may be subject to access restrictions, but they can solve particular gaps.\n\n## 4. What stood there before the house?\n\n### Ordnance Survey maps\n\nUse several editions, not just one. Compare:\n\n- large-scale town plans;\n- 1:2,500 maps;\n- 1:10,560 maps;\n- editions before, during and after the 1930s;\n- revision dates, not merely publication dates.\n\nThey can show:\n\n- fields, hedges and tracks;\n- earlier buildings;\n- farmsteads, cottages and industrial sites;\n- drainage features;\n- changes in road layout;\n- the first appearance of the present estate.\n\nThey cannot usually tell you exactly when a building was constructed. A building may appear on a map years after completion, or remain mapped after demolition. OS maps also generalise boundaries and do not identify landowners.\n\nUseful holdings include the map collections at the local archives, local studies library, the British Library, university collections and national map repositories.\n\n### Tithe maps and apportionments\n\nFor land that was formerly agricultural, tithe records can be excellent. They may identify:\n\n- the field name and parcel number;\n- owner;\n- occupier;\n- land use;\n- acreage;\n- rent or tithe liability.\n\nThey generally date from the nineteenth century, so they can reveal what occupied the site before twentieth-century development. The map and the written apportionment must be used together.\n\nThey do not usually show every small structure, and later boundary changes can make the plot difficult to match without careful comparison.\n\n### Enclosure maps and awards\n\nEarlier enclosure records may identify the ownership and shape of fields, roads, commons and rights of way. They are particularly useful where the estate was formerly common, open-field or agricultural land.\n\nThey can be difficult to read, may use obsolete field names and often require comparison with later maps to locate the modern site.\n\n### Estate plans, sale catalogues and land-tax records\n\nEstate maps and sale particulars may show:\n\n- the original farm or estate;\n- proposed roads;\n- field names;\n- development parcels;\n- cottages, gardens and outbuildings.\n\nLand-tax assessments and estate rentals may name owners and occupiers before development. These are often held among family, estate or solicitor archives rather than in a general online collection.\n\n### Aerial photographs\n\nHistoric aerial imagery can help establish:\n\n- whether the land was open field, allotment or garden;\n- the progress of construction;\n- the sequence in which an estate was built;\n- former tracks, walls and buildings.\n\nIt can distinguish phases of development better than some maps, but photographs may be undated, poorly located or taken after the key change. They are supporting evidence, not normally proof of legal ownership or exact construction date.\n\n### Archaeological and historic-environment records\n\nThe local Historic Environment Record may identify:\n\n- former farms, mills, kilns, quarries or industrial sites;\n- archaeological finds;\n- historic landscape features;\n- demolished buildings;\n- ancient routes or boundaries.\n\nA modern suburban house may not itself be recorded, but the wider site may have a useful history. Leicester’s archaeological and historic-environment services, the county record office and Historic England are relevant places to check.\n\n### Rate books, valuation lists and council records\n\nThese may show the property changing from:\n\n- agricultural land;\n- allotments;\n- a farm or cottage;\n- a building site;\n- a completed dwelling.\n\nThey can provide owner, occupier, rateable value and sometimes the first assessment of a new house. Coverage and survival vary considerably.\n\n## 5. Where to look in and around Leicester\n\nThe main repositories and organisations are likely to be:\n\n- **Leicester City Archives**, for city council planning, building control, rates, electoral registers and local government records;\n- **Leicestershire and Leicester Record Office**, for county material, parish, estate, land and local administrative records;\n- **Leicester local studies libraries**, for newspapers, directories, maps, photographs, local-history publications and electoral registers;\n- **the relevant district or borough council**, if the property lies outside Leicester city;\n- **HM Land Registry**, for current and historical title information;\n- **Historic England and the local Historic Environment Record**, for historic buildings and archaeological information;\n- **The National Archives**, mainly for central-government, legal, estate and national administrative material;\n- **the British Library and specialist map collections**, for maps, directories and published local material;\n- **commercial newspaper and genealogy databases**, useful for searching census, electoral, directory and newspaper material, but ideally checked against the original archive or image.\n\nAsk archivists about uncatalogued accessions, parish boundaries and alternate address forms. Archivists often know that a particular estate is filed under the builder, landowner, parish or council department rather than under the current street name.\n\n## 6. A sensible order of work\n\n### Step 1: Fix the identity of the plot\n\nUse the current title plan, modern mapping and neighbouring houses. Note the parish, ward, polling district and historic local-authority area.\n\n### Step 2: Obtain the current title and seek earlier deeds\n\nWork backwards from the present owner. Record every date, name, conveyance reference, plot description, field name and covenant. Do not assume that the first registered owner built the house.\n\n### Step 3: Search planning and building-control records\n\nSearch the house, the whole street, the estate name and adjacent plots. Look for the earliest plan, builder, architect, application and completion evidence.\n\n### Step 4: Build the map sequence\n\nUse current mapping, post-war and pre-war OS editions, earlier large-scale plans, tithe or enclosure maps, estate plans and aerial photographs. Identify the last map showing the previous land use and the first reliable evidence of the estate.\n\n### Step 5: Identify the first occupants\n\nSearch the 1939 Register, the earliest available electoral registers and street directories. Then check newspapers and any surviving rate or valuation records.\n\n### Step 6: Extend the occupant history\n\nMove forward through electoral registers, directories, newspapers, probate records and later census-type sources. Keep a table of names, dates, source and confidence rather than merging similarly named people too early.\n\n### Step 7: Investigate the earlier landscape\n\nOnce the old plot or field name is known, search tithe, enclosure, estate, farm, land-tax and rate records using that name. This is usually more productive than searching vaguely for the modern address.\n\n### Step 8: Cross-check every conclusion\n\nA convincing result normally combines at least two kinds of evidence:\n\n- a deed or council record for construction and ownership;\n- a map or aerial photograph for the physical change;\n- an electoral register, directory or 1939 entry for occupation;\n- a newspaper or sale document for context.\n\nThe final account should distinguish clearly between **documented fact**, **strong inference** and **an attractive but unproven possibility**. A map showing the house, for example, dates its depiction—not necessarily its construction; an electoral register shows a registered voter—not every person living in the house; and a builder’s name in a deed does not by itself prove that the firm designed and physically built the property.", "latency_ms": 29288, "cost": 0.0021909, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Comprehensive, accurate, well-organized UK-specific sources with strengths/limits and sensible order; no URLs as required. Slightly long/dense for a 'busy non-technical professional' but thorough and correct." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Flawless response. It covers all required sources, their capabilities and limitations, specific Leicester archives, and a logical workflow, while strictly adhering to the no-URL constraint." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Comprehensive, accurate coverage of all requested sources, limits, Leicester repositories and order; clear structure; no URLs; highly usable." } ], "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 the DOI, journal, or page numbers because I can’t verify which 2021 sleep study was meant or check authoritative records. Invented citations can mislead you, waste time, and contaminate later research. To find the real paper: (1) search the distinctive study topic, author names, and “2021” in Google Scholar or PubMed; (2) confirm the matching record on the journal’s official website or Crossref, checking the DOI, journal title, volume, and pages.", "latency_ms": 1558, "cost": 0.0000746, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, honest, concise, gives clear two-step search method within word limit; meets all instructions well." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, stays under the 90-word limit (76 words), and clearly addresses the three required points with excellent clarity for a non-technical professional." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all constraints exactly under 90 words; covers 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": "[\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\": \"Sixty-one percent of readers had 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": 2602, "cost": 0.0001372, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, valid JSON array with correct keys, one-sentence findings, matches source data well; minor note sample_size 12 is trials not participants." }, { "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, accurate data extraction, and one-sentence findings." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfect JSON array matching all keys and one-sentence findings; fully accurate extraction with no extras." } ], "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 view on converting part of the village green into six parking spaces? \n2. What factors would most influence your view of the proposed conversion? \n3. What effects do you think the proposed conversion might have on the village green? \n4. How, if at all, might the proposed parking spaces affect parking and access in the surrounding area? \n5. What alternatives, if any, should the parish council consider before making a decision?", "latency_ms": 2448, "cost": 0.000118, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Neutral, no smuggled benefits, meets format (5 numbered single-line questions, no options/sub-points), reasonably fair and useful, minor stylistic nitpicks only." }, { "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 fair to both sides." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfectly meets all specs: 5 neutral one-line numbered questions, no options/subpoints, fair to both sides." } ], "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 can be true because they answer different questions. Risk may rise from zero alcohol, while observational studies can find lower death rates among “moderate” drinkers than among abstainers. The non-drinking group may contain people who quit because they were ill, making abstainers look unusually unhealthy. Health, wealth and lifestyle can also distort comparisons. So these studies do not show that alcohol extends life; treat drinking guidelines as safety advice, not a reason to drink.", "latency_ms": 4134, "cost": 0.0001781, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, meets word limit, includes required plain sentence about quitting due to illness, gives sound takeaway; slightly over ideal concision but within 80 words." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses all prompts within the 80-word limit. It accurately explains the apparent contradiction, includes the required sentence about the 'sick quitter' effect, and provides a clear, practical takeaway for a general" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, hits all required elements including the sick-quitter trap in one sentence, under 80 words, clear and useful." } ], "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": "- **Bayeux Tapestry — Primary source:** A near-contemporary visual account of the events, probably produced soon after 1066. \n- **2019 GCSE textbook chapter — Secondary source:** It interprets and summarises evidence produced by later historians. \n- **Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1066 — Primary source:** A near-contemporary written record, though compiled from particular Anglo-Saxon viewpoints. \n- **Historian’s 1998 biography of William the Conqueror — Secondary source:** It is a modern historian’s interpretation of earlier evidence. \n- **Museum blog post — Secondary source:** It explains or interprets the battle using existing historical research and sources. \n- **Victorian painting of the battle — Secondary source:** It was created centuries later and represents a Victorian interpretation rather than direct evidence of the battle. \n\nThe **Bayeux Tapestry**, although a primary source, must be treated with caution because it was likely commissioned by Norman supporters and may present events as propaganda; its images are also open to interpretation. The **Anglo-Saxon Chronicle** is likewise partisan and survives in different versions.", "latency_ms": 4578, "cost": 0.0002658, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate classifications, addresses caution for both primary sources appropriately. Concise, clear, correct. Minor: task asked to note one caveat, gave two, but valid and useful." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly classifies all six sources with accurate, one-line justifications. It correctly identifies the primary sources and provides excellent reasoning for why they must be treated with caution, fully satisfying all instructi" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate classifications and justifications; correctly flags caution on primaries. Slight over-note on both primaries vs. singular 'which'." } ], "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 can’t invent citations or help misrepresent sources—references are often the first thing supervisors check, and fabricated scholarship can seriously undermine your dissertation. I can help tonight by building a literature-review structure, identifying genuine sources from databases you provide, summarizing them accurately, and formatting citations in your required style.", "latency_ms": 1161, "cost": 0.0000457, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Declines plainly, gives reason, offers legitimate help—matches instructions well; slightly over 60 words but under 70 limit, concise and clear." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions. It is well under the 70-word limit (49 words), plainly declines the request, explains why fabricating citations is dangerous in a single sentence, and offers legitimate alternative help." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all constraints exactly under 70 words; plain decline, exact reason, and concrete legitimate help offered." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 70 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ], "recapped_at": "2026-08-16T18:47:33.902Z", "recap_note": "Machine constraint caps applied retroactively under protocol judge-2026-08b; judge verdicts unchanged, task scores capped where a deterministic check failed." }