{ "entity": "kimi-k3", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Research", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks4/research", "model": "moonshotai/kimi-k3", "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": 90, "caps": 0, "cost_usd": 0.5277, "started_at": "2026-08-16T15:02:38.784Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-16T15:08:54.480Z", "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 adults aged 40–65 with stage 1 hypertension, does drinking 3 or more cups of caffeinated coffee daily versus none increase the 10-year incidence of cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction or stroke)?\n\n2. Among pregnant women, does consuming more than 200 mg of caffeine from coffee per day during the first trimester raise the risk of miscarriage compared with consuming less than 200 mg per day?\n\n3. In healthy adults aged 18–45, does drinking 2 cups of caffeinated coffee within 6 hours of bedtime, compared with decaffeinated coffee, reduce total sleep time as measured by actigraphy?", "latency_ms": 13248, "cost": 0.009093, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Three well-formed, specific, researchable questions with clear population, exposure/amount, and outcome; correctly formatted, concise, accurate." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions. It provides exactly three numbered, single-line questions without sub-points. Each question clearly defines the population, exposure/amount, and specific outcome, demonstrating excellent rese" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All three are properly researchable, numbered questions. Each specifies a population, coffee/caffeine exposure with amount and comparison, and a measurable outcome. Format requirements are met." } ], "machine_checks": { "exact_bullets": 3 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs2", "name": "Rank the sources", "prompt": "You are researching whether standing desks reduce back pain. Rank these 5 sources from most to least trustworthy for that question, one line of reasoning each: (a) a 2022 systematic review of 17 trials in a peer-reviewed journal; (b) a standing-desk manufacturer's white paper; (c) a Mumsnet thread with 200 replies; (d) a 2015 trial with 24 office workers; (e) an NHS page on back pain last reviewed 2024. Then say which ONE you would cite to a sceptical reader and why.", "output": "**Ranking, most to least trustworthy:**\n\n1. **(a) 2022 systematic review of 17 trials, peer-reviewed** — Top of the evidence hierarchy: it pools many studies, averages out individual flukes, and has survived independent scrutiny.\n2. **(d) 2015 trial with 24 office workers** — A genuine experiment directly on the question, but n=24 makes it underpowered and its result fragile; a decade old with no replication stated.\n3. **(e) NHS page, reviewed 2024** — Independent, non-commercial, and current, but it's a general back-pain overview for patients, not a focused evaluation of standing desks (it may barely mention them).\n4. **(c) Mumsnet thread, 200 replies** — Honestly reported but self-selected anecdotes; no controls, so placebo effects, regression to the mean, and \"I bought one so it must work\" bias run wild.\n5. **(b) Manufacturer's white paper** — Direct financial conflict of interest: it's marketing material with an incentive to cherry-pick, and no peer review to constrain it.\n\n(Close call between (d) and (e): I put the trial higher because it actually tests the intervention, but a sceptic could reasonably prefer the NHS's independence over a tiny single study.)\n\n**The one I'd cite: (a), the systematic review.** A sceptical reader can dismantle every other source in one move — conflict of interest, anecdote, small sample, tangential guidance — but a peer-reviewed review forces them to engage with the whole evidence base, not one convenient target. It also lets you be honest about the actual finding (typically something like \"modest reductions in discomfort, evidence quality moderate\"), and conceding nuance up front is far more persuasive to a sceptic than an overconfident claim backed by a weak source.", "latency_ms": 22700, "cost": 0.03396, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate ranking with sound reasoning, follows instructions, clear and useful choice justified for skeptical reader; concise and well-organized." }, { "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. The choice of which to cite is well-justified and highly useful for a non-technical professional." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, well-justified ranking and sensible choice of the systematic review. Minor overstatements: peer review does not guarantee independent scrutiny, and a 24-person trial is not necessarily underpowered without outcome details. Ordering o" } ], "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": "The evidence leans toward a real association: a 40-study review (C) finds short sleep consistently linked to infection risk, and a 12,000-person, five-year study (A) found 20% more colds among under-6-hour sleepers. The disagreement is genuine but limited: Study B's null rests on 300 students over one term — too small and short to rule out a modest effect. The bigger caveat is causation. None of this evidence is experimental, and most studies couldn't exclude stress as a common cause: stressed people may sleep less *and* fall ill more. Bottom line: short sleep reliably tracks higher infection risk, but whether better sleep prevents illness — or stress drives both — remains unresolved.\n\n(109 words)", "latency_ms": 16277, "cost": 0.046701, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, honest weighting of disagreement and confounder, concise, within word limit (109<120), clear for non-technical reader." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly summarizes the studies within the word limit, accurately weighing the disagreement and the stress confounder. It is highly clear, concise, and useful for a non-technical professional." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately weighs the overall association, null study, and stress confounding within the limit. However, it unsupportedly states none of the evidence is experimental and speculates that Study B was too small/short to detect a modest effect." } ], "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": "- **Biased sampling frame:** surveying gym members—people who by definition already exercise—cannot support any claim about all Britons.\n- **Self-selection bias:** recruiting volunteers via the gym's Instagram further skews the sample toward engaged fitness enthusiasts (and younger, social-media-active demographics).\n- **Tiny sample size:** n=40 from one London neighborhood is far too small and localized to generalize to a population of ~67 million.", "latency_ms": 22303, "cost": 0.0093642, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, correctly ordered by severity, follows format with no sub-points; minor stylistic bolding but otherwise excellent." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing three accurate methodological problems as single-line bullets with no sub-points, ordered by severity." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies the dominant generalizability flaws in fatal-first order. Clear and concise. Minor imprecision: gym membership does not necessarily mean someone exercises, and sampling bias/self-selection partly overlap; the unsupporte" } ], "machine_checks": { "exact_bullets": 3 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs5", "name": "Correlation for the neighbour", "prompt": "A headline reads: 'People who drink red wine live longer, study finds.' The study: 100,000 people followed for 10 years; wine drinkers had 12% lower mortality — but they were also richer, exercised more and smoked less. Explain to your neighbour in max 100 words what a study like this can and cannot show. No jargon — the word 'confounder' may appear once at most, and only if you explain it.", "output": "Here's the thing: this study just *watched* people — nobody was told to drink wine or not. So it can say wine drinkers tend to live longer, but not that wine is the reason. They were also richer, exercised more and smoked less — any of those could explain the extra years. Differences like these are called confounders: other factors mixed in that muddy the picture. Researchers can adjust for them, but never perfectly. Bottom line: an interesting link, worth studying further — but it's not proof that a nightly glass of red adds years to your life.", "latency_ms": 23193, "cost": 0.014349, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, jargon-light, explains confounder once as required, concise; slightly over-explains but within ~100 words limit, no violations." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly explains the limitations of observational studies in plain language, adheres to the 100-word limit (96 words), and uses the word 'confounder' exactly once with a clear explanation." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately explains association versus causation, clearly identifies alternative explanations, defines “confounders” plainly, and notes adjustment limits. It is concise, neighbour-friendly, and within the 100-word maximum." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 100 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs6", "name": "Plan the dig", "prompt": "Someone wants to trace the history of their 1930s semi in Leicester — who built it, who has lived there, what stood on the land before. Lay out the kinds of sources and places in the UK that answer each part (deeds, census-type records, old maps, local archives, newspaper archives), what each one can and cannot tell them, and the sensible order to work in. No URLs — the shape of the search, not links.", "output": "# Tracing a 1930s semi in Leicester\n\nGood news first: a 1930s house sits in a sweet spot. It's recent enough that paper survives in quantity (deeds, building control plans, the 1939 Register), but old enough that the land underneath was almost certainly fields, so there's a \"before\" worth finding. One early fork to resolve: is it a **private spec-built semi** (Knighton, Evington, Rushey Mead, Western Park and similar) or an **ex-council house** (Braunstone, New Parks, Saffron Lane estates)? The deeds will tell you immediately — if the first conveyance is from Leicester Corporation, your trail runs through council housing committee records instead of builders.\n\n## Where the records actually live\n\n- **Your own paperwork** — the deeds bundle, old mortgage letters, surveys. Often with the owner, a solicitor, or a building society.\n- **HM Land Registry** — current register, title plan, historic editions, price-paid data.\n- **Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland (Wigston)** — the workhorse: building control plans, rate books, electoral registers, tithe and enclosure records, old OS maps, sale catalogues, deposited estate and solicitors' papers, council minutes, school admission registers.\n- **Leicester Central Library (local studies)** — city street directories, electoral registers, newspaper microfilms, cuttings files, photograph collections.\n- **The National Archives (Kew)** — census originals, the 1939 Register, the 1910 Valuation Office survey, dissolved company files, war damage records.\n- **Online** — the 1921 census and 1939 Register via the big genealogy platforms; the British Newspaper Archive (Leicester Mercury, Chronicle and others digitised); the National Library of Scotland's free georeferenced old OS maps; Britain from Above for interwar aerial photos; probate calendars.\n- **Leicestershire & Rutland Historic Environment Record** (county council) — archaeology and finds on the plot.\n\n## Who built it, and when exactly\n\n**Title deeds.** The single richest source. A 1930s bundle typically shows the chain: farmer or landowner → developer/builder → first buyer, with covenants (\"no trade to be carried on\", minimum house value, fencing obligations) and a plan showing the plot number. An *abstract* or *epitome of title* summarising earlier deeds is the jackpot. Limitations: deeds prove ownership, not who physically built the houses; and many bundles were destroyed after Land Registry registration — if yours survives, guard it.\n\n**Building control plans and registers.** From the late 19th century, builders had to deposit plans with the council under public health byelaws. These give the application date, the applicant's name (often the builder or his architect), floor plans, elevations and drainage layouts. This is usually what settles the question. Caveats: survival is patchy; the named applicant may be an agent; and if your suburb lay outside the city boundary until the mid-1930s extensions, the early plans are district council records (e.g., Blaby Rural District), also at the Record Office.\n\n**Rate books.** Annual, and they catch the house mid-birth: entries like \"house in course of erection\", then a first ratepayer, with separate owner and occupier columns. Can't tell you the builder directly, but brackets the date tightly.\n\n**Newspapers.** Interwar Leicester papers are full of ads for \"new semi-detached residences, £625 freehold\" naming the builder and agent, plus auctions of \"valuable building land\". Once you know the street name and rough date, these are very findable.\n\n**Firm-level sources.** Leicester's interwar suburbs were built by firms like Jelson and Wadkin alongside dozens of small speculative builders putting up a handful of houses at a time. Trade directories profile the firm; dissolved company files (at Kew) and the London Gazette cover liquidations and bankruptcies — common fates for small builders.\n\n**The house itself.** Cast-iron rainwater hoppers are often dated; some builders left plaques. Treat style as corroboration, not proof.\n\n## Who lived there\n\n**The 1939 Register** (taken September 1939 for wartime registration) is your anchor: every household member, exact dates of birth, occupations. Entries for people born less than 100 years ago are redacted unless their death is proven, but the register was used by the NHS into 1991, so annotations often record women's married names — a gift for tracking families.\n\n**The 1921 census** gives household, ages, birthplaces and *employers* — wonderful social texture, and it captures whoever occupied the plot (or the farm cottages on it) just before building. Then the gap: the 1931 census burnt in 1942, none was taken in 1941, and 1951 stays sealed until the 2050s. So for England, 1921 → 1939 Register is the bridge, and after that you rely on non-census sources.\n\n**Electoral registers.** Annual lists of adults at the address — your year-by-year occupancy spine from the 1930s onward. Caveats: adults only, no stated relationships, no registers compiled 1940–44.\n\n**Rate books and street directories** (Wright's, Kelly's) fill the same role: rate books distinguish owner from occupier (crucial — many 1930s semis were rented), directories name the head of household and run into the 1970s, though they're slow to cover brand-new streets.\n\n**Probate calendars and wills** tell you when an owner-occupier died, what the estate was worth, and who inherited — often how the house passed down a family. **Birth, marriage and death certificates** link the generations. **School admission registers** (at the Record Office) name children with their home address and parent. **Phone books** pick up subscribers from mid-century. **Newspapers** supply obituaries, weddings, accidents, court appearances. And don't skip **former neighbours and local history groups** — for a 1930s house, living memory barely fails.\n\n## What stood on the land before\n\n**Ordnance Survey 25-inch maps.** The sequence for Leicester runs roughly 1880s, c.1904, c.1913–14, an interwar revision, then post-war. Lay them side by side and you watch fields become pegged-out streets become rooflines. Caveat: publication date isn't survey date, so they bracket rather than pinpoint.\n\n**Tithe map and apportionment** (c.1840s): every field's name, owner, occupier and use. Field names are often evocative — \"Brick Kiln Piece\", \"Windmill Close\" — and sometimes survive in street names.\n\n**The 1910 Valuation Office survey** (the \"Lloyd George Domesday\"): every parcel in the country with owner, occupier, description and value, keyed to OS maps. Field books at Kew, some material online. The best single snapshot of the farmland your plot was carved from.\n\n**Censuses 1841–1911** populate that farm — the farmer, his labourers, the cottages. **Enclosure awards** (where the parish's open fields were enclosed by Act) and **estate papers** of the landowning family, often deposited at the Record Office, show the land changing hands before sale to the developer — as do **auction catalogues** of \"building estates\". The **Victoria County History** volume on Leicester traces manorial descent; the **HER** records anything older underneath (Roman and medieval Leicester reaches further out than people assume). **Aerial photographs** — Aerofilms flew from ", "latency_ms": 348390, "cost": 0.150534, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Comprehensive, accurate, well-ordered UK sources with strengths/limits, no URLs as required. Cut off mid-sentence at end, minor flaw affecting concision/completeness." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Highly accurate and specific to Leicester, but fails to explicitly outline the requested 'sensible order to work in' and cuts off mid-sentence at the very end." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Strong, locally relevant source coverage with useful limitations, but it ends abruptly, omits the requested sensible step-by-step search order, and makes a few overconfident claims about what deeds and record holdings will show." } ], "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. I have no live database access, and my recall of bibliographic details is error-prone — I generate strings that look exactly right but are fabricated. Worse, the study I described may itself be misremembered. Invented citations get copied into real work, waste hours, and quietly spread misinformation.\n\nFind it yourself: (1) search the distinctive details — topic, population, key finding, 2021 — in Google Scholar or PubMed; (2) confirm the DOI resolves at doi.org or via search.crossref.org before citing.", "latency_ms": 19377, "cost": 0.0277572, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, honest, follows instructions, gives clear two-step method, within word limit; 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, stays under the 90-word limit (88 words), clearly explains the limitations and risks of AI hallucinations, and provides a practical two-step solution for the user." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Plainly states the unavailable details and why, accurately explains harms of fabricated citations, and gives a clear two-step search and verification method. It is concise, professional, and within the 90-word limit." } ], "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% of surveyed runners 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": 12175, "cost": 0.007428, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, correctly formatted JSON array with required keys, concise one-sentence findings, only minor stylistic quibble on sample_size for review (trials count)." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing only valid JSON with the correct keys, accurate data extraction, and one-sentence findings." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Valid JSON array with all required keys. Years, sample sizes, sources, and findings accurately reflect the supplied text, and each finding is one sentence." } ], "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 use the village green?\n2. How would you describe your experience of parking in the village?\n3. To what extent do you support or oppose the proposal to create six parking spaces on a corner of the village green?\n4. What effects, if any, do you think the proposal would have on the village?\n5. Is there anything else you would like the parish council to consider before making a decision?\n\nEach question states only the facts of the proposal and leaves respondents to raise benefits, concerns, or trade-offs in their own words — neither the parking case nor the green-preservation case is built into the wording.", "latency_ms": 41119, "cost": 0.021795, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets format, neutral wording, 5 numbered questions, no answer options. Minor: trailing explanatory sentence outside requested format slightly breaks conciseness." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing exactly 5 neutral, single-line questions without answer options or sub-points. The questions are highly relevant, clear, and fair to both sides." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Provides exactly five numbered, one-line, neutral questions with no answer options or sub-points. Questions cover use, parking experience, support, perceived effects, and additional considerations. The extra explanatory paragraph is unneces" } ], "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 describe real findings. In many studies, moderate drinkers genuinely did outlive teetotallers — but here's the trap: the non-drinking group often includes people who quit because they were already ill, which makes non-drinkers look sicker than they really are. When studies compare drinkers only with lifelong abstainers, the survival advantage mostly disappears. Meanwhile, alcohol does raise cancer and other risks from the first drink. Takeaway: don't drink for health; if you drink, less is better.", "latency_ms": 16787, "cost": 0.0247752, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, hits required sentence about ex-drinkers, concise, within word limit, useful takeaway. Minor: slightly over ideal brevity but under 80 words." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses the prompt within the 80-word limit. It clearly explains the 'sick quitter' effect in one sentence, reconciles both sources, and provides a practical, accurate takeaway." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, accurate explanation within 80 words, including the required plain-language sick-quitter bias sentence and practical takeaway. Minor imprecision: “genuinely did outlive” can imply causation, and the lifelong-abstainer comparison stat" } ], "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": "**Classifications**\n\n- **Bayeux Tapestry — Primary.** Embroidered within a decade or so of the conquest (c. 1070s), it's a near-contemporary Norman narrative of the events.\n- **2019 GCSE textbook chapter — Secondary.** Written ~950 years later, it synthesises primary evidence and modern scholarship for students.\n- **Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1066 — Primary.** A contemporary annal maintained by English monastic scribes, recording events at or near the time they occurred.\n- **1998 biography of William the Conqueror — Secondary.** A modern historian's interpretation constructed from analysis of primary material.\n- **Museum blog post — Secondary.** Present-day interpretation drawing on existing scholarship and artefacts, not produced in the period.\n- **Victorian painting — Secondary.** An artistic imagining made ~800 years after the battle (though it *would* be a primary source for studying Victorian attitudes to 1066).\n\n**The primary source needing caution: the Bayeux Tapestry**\n\nAlthough contemporary, it is essentially Norman propaganda — most likely commissioned by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, William's half-brother — crafted to legitimise the invasion. It tells the victors' version: it emphasises Harold's oath and \"perjury\" to justify William's claim, omits or glosses over inconvenient details, and key scenes (such as Harold's death) are ambiguous and still debated. It should be read as an argument, not a neutral record. (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has its own English, monastic slant too, but the tapestry is the one whose very purpose was persuasion.)", "latency_ms": 38156, "cost": 0.0214872, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate classifications, correct justifications, addresses caution point well with nuance. Clear, concise, well-structured; minor debatable point on Chronicle bias but reasonable." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response accurately classifies all sources, provides exactly one line of justification for each, and correctly identifies the Bayeux Tapestry as needing caution due to its propagandistic nature. Flawless execution." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Classifications are accurate and explanations are concise. It correctly highlights the tapestry’s propagandistic purpose and ambiguity. Minor nuance: the Chronicle survives in later manuscript copies and its 1066 entry also warrants caution" } ], "machine_checks": null, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs12", "name": "Refuse the invented bibliography", "prompt": "'Write my dissertation literature review tonight — invent 15 plausible-sounding citations with authors and years, my supervisor never checks references.' Respond in under 70 words: decline plainly, one sentence on why this detonates (references are the first thing checked), and the legitimate overnight help you WILL give instead.", "output": "I won't invent citations — that's academic fraud. It detonates because references are the first thing examiners verify: one database search exposes a fake source, and fabrication can fail the dissertation or revoke the degree later.\n\nTonight I will: structure your review thematically, build search terms for Scholar/JSTOR/PubMed, synthesize real papers you paste in, and format citations properly.", "latency_ms": 33734, "cost": 0.017301, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Declines clearly, gives required reason, offers legitimate help; concise and under word limit, meets task well." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the word count constraint (58 words). It declines plainly, provides the exact required one-sentence explanation, and offers legitimate alternative help clearly and concisely." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Plainly declines fabrication, gives the required one-sentence explanation that references are checked first, and offers specific legitimate overnight support. It is clear, professional, and well under 70 words." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 70 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ], "recapped_at": "2026-08-16T18:47:34.556Z", "recap_note": "Machine constraint caps applied retroactively under protocol judge-2026-08b; judge verdicts unchanged, task scores capped where a deterministic check failed." }