{ "entity": "kimi-k3", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Bookkeeping & accounts", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks6/bookkeeping", "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", "kind": "solo", "decider": false, "note": null, "score": 84, "caps": 0, "cost_usd": 0.9116, "started_at": "2026-08-18T11:20:08.400Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-18T11:23:47.907Z", "tasks": [ { "id": "bk1", "name": "The client lunch and the sandwich", "prompt": "Guidance excerpt: 'VAT incurred on business entertainment provided to people who are not employees cannot normally be reclaimed as input tax. VAT on subsistence — reasonable meals and drinks for employees, or for the business owner, while travelling on business — can normally be reclaimed if you hold a valid VAT invoice. Where one bill covers both employees and non-employees, only the employee element may be reclaimed. A card receipt that does not show the supplier VAT number is not a valid VAT invoice.' The situation: Ray runs a VAT-registered building firm. In March he has two receipts. One is £86.40 for lunch with a prospective client, at which he also ate; it is a card slip with no VAT number on it. The other is £14.20 for his own sandwich and coffee at a motorway services on the way to a site 90 miles away, with a full VAT receipt. Answer using only the excerpt above — your answer is marked against that excerpt, not against outside knowledge. Take each receipt in turn, say what happens to the VAT and to the cost itself in the books, and say plainly which point here is one to put to his accountant rather than settle from the excerpt.", "output": "**Receipt 1 — £86.40, lunch with a prospective client (card slip, no VAT number)**\n\n*VAT:* None of it can be reclaimed. The excerpt gives two independent reasons:\n- The prospective client is not an employee, so the client's share is business entertainment, and VAT on entertainment for non-employees cannot normally be reclaimed.\n- Even for Ray's own share, the excerpt states that a card receipt without the supplier's VAT number is not a valid VAT invoice — and a valid VAT invoice is the condition for any reclaim. That alone kills the whole claim.\n\n*Cost in the books:* With no VAT recovered, the full £86.40 (VAT-inclusive) is recorded as a business entertainment expense. The excerpt says nothing about whether that expense is deductible against profits for other taxes.\n\n**Receipt 2 — £14.20, his own sandwich and coffee en route to a site 90 miles away (full VAT receipt)**\n\n*VAT:* This falls squarely within the excerpt's definition of subsistence — a reasonable meal and drink for the business owner while travelling on business — and he holds a full VAT receipt, i.e. a valid VAT invoice. So the VAT can normally be reclaimed as input tax.\n\n*Cost in the books:* The VAT element shown on the receipt is reclaimed as input tax; the remaining net amount is recorded as a subsistence/travel cost. (If the receipt shows VAT at 20%, that would be roughly £2.37 VAT and £11.83 net — but the excerpt doesn't state a rate, so the split should be taken from the VAT figure printed on the receipt.)\n\n**The point to put to his accountant**\n\nWhether Ray's *own* share of a mixed bill could ever be reclaimed. The excerpt's apportionment rule says that where one bill covers employees and non-employees, \"only the employee element may be reclaimed\" — and Ray is the owner, not an employee. The subsistence rule does cover the business owner, but the excerpt never spells out how the two rules interact for the owner's element of a mixed bill. That question is for his accountant — though on these facts it's academic, because the missing VAT number already rules out any reclaim on the £86.40 receipt. (A second matter outside the excerpt's scope: whether the entertainment cost itself is deductible for income or corporation tax purposes.)", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 20035, "cost": 0.0465732, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, thorough, correctly applies excerpt, flags legitimate accountant question. Slightly verbose with added speculation (VAT rate breakdown) not in excerpt, minor deviation from strict source-only constraint." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, accurately applying only the provided excerpt to both receipts, addressing VAT and book costs, and astutely identifying the ambiguity regarding the owner's share of a mixed bill to ask the ac" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies receipt 2 as reclaimable and receipt 1 as unreclaimable in practice. However, it overstates that a valid invoice is required for “any” reclaim, adds an outside 20% VAT example, and gives unsupported bookkeeping classifi" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": null }, { "id": "bk2", "name": "Categorise, and admit what you cannot", "prompt": "Nine lines from a sole trader's business bank feed. She is a self-employed dog groomer. 1) 'AMZN Mktp UK £41.99'. 2) 'PETSMART WHOLESALE £238.00'. 3) 'SHELL BRIGHOUSE £62.10'. 4) 'TRANSFER TO J CROSSLEY £600.00'. 5) 'SAGE UK LTD £22.00'. 6) 'B&Q 1147 £84.55'. 7) 'HMRC NDDS £310.00'. 8) 'COSTA COFFEE £9.40'. 9) 'DVLA VEHICLE TAX £190.00'. Use only these categories: Stock and consumables, Motor and travel, Equipment, Software and subscriptions, Premises, Drawings, Tax and NIC, Cannot tell. Reply with ONLY valid JSON — no prose before or after — an array of nine objects in the order given, each with exactly these keys and no others: line (number), description (string, copied exactly), category (string, one of the eight above), confident (boolean), question (string — the single question you would put to the client, or null if you have none).", "output": "[\n {\n \"line\": 1,\n \"description\": \"AMZN Mktp UK £41.99\",\n \"category\": \"Cannot tell\",\n \"confident\": false,\n \"question\": \"What did you buy from Amazon — grooming supplies, equipment, or something personal?\"\n },\n {\n \"line\": 2,\n \"description\": \"PETSMART WHOLESALE £238.00\",\n \"category\": \"Stock and consumables\",\n \"confident\": true,\n \"question\": null\n },\n {\n \"line\": 3,\n \"description\": \"SHELL BRIGHOUSE £62.10\",\n \"category\": \"Motor and travel\",\n \"confident\": true,\n \"question\": null\n },\n {\n \"line\": 4,\n \"description\": \"TRANSFER TO J CROSSLEY £600.00\",\n \"category\": \"Cannot tell\",\n \"confident\": false,\n \"question\": \"Who is J Crossley and what was this £600 transfer for?\"\n },\n {\n \"line\": 5,\n \"description\": \"SAGE UK LTD £22.00\",\n \"category\": \"Software and subscriptions\",\n \"confident\": true,\n \"question\": null\n },\n {\n \"line\": 6,\n \"description\": \"B&Q 1147 £84.55\",\n \"category\": \"Cannot tell\",\n \"confident\": false,\n \"question\": \"What did you buy at B&Q — salon repairs, equipment, or something personal?\"\n },\n {\n \"line\": 7,\n \"description\": \"HMRC NDDS £310.00\",\n \"category\": \"Tax and NIC\",\n \"confident\": true,\n \"question\": null\n },\n {\n \"line\": 8,\n \"description\": \"COSTA COFFEE £9.40\",\n \"category\": \"Cannot tell\",\n \"confident\": false,\n \"question\": \"Was this coffee bought while travelling on business or with a client, or was it personal?\"\n },\n {\n \"line\": 9,\n \"description\": \"DVLA VEHICLE TAX £190.00\",\n \"category\": \"Motor and travel\",\n \"confident\": true,\n \"question\": null\n }\n]", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 48511, "cost": 0.026823, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Sensible categorization, valid JSON, correct keys/order. Line 4 arguably Drawings but flagged as uncertain is reasonable; minor debatable calls only." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the strict JSON format, correct keys, exact descriptions, and valid categories. The categorizations and questions are highly accurate and useful." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Valid JSON with all nine ordered objects, exact descriptions, permitted categories, and appropriate questions. Most classifications are sound. The transfer to J Crossley may reasonably be Drawings for a sole trader, though seeking clarifica" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": { "must_parse_json": true } }, { "id": "bk3", "name": "The invoice totals", "prompt": "A VAT-registered UK business is raising one invoice. The lines: 12 branded mugs at £7.50 each, standard-rated at 20%; 200 printed leaflets at £0.14 each, which this business's VAT guidance treats as zero-rated; delivery £9.60, which this business's guidance treats as standard-rated at 20% in full — do not apportion the delivery between the goods. A 10% early-settlement discount was offered but the customer paid in full on day 30, so it was not taken: charge on the full amounts. Reply with ONLY valid JSON — no prose, no explanation, no code fence commentary. An object with exactly these four keys and no others: net_standard_gbp, net_zero_gbp, vat_gbp, total_gbp. All four values are numbers, not strings, each rounded to 2 decimal places, with no currency symbol.", "output": "{\"net_standard_gbp\":99.60,\"net_zero_gbp\":28.00,\"vat_gbp\":19.92,\"total_gbp\":147.52}", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 14051, "cost": 0.007839, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All calculations correct, format matches exactly required keys and rounding." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, provides exactly the requested JSON format with no code fences or prose, and the calculations are completely accurate." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All calculations are correct: standard-rated net £99.60, zero-rated net £28.00, VAT £19.92, and total £147.52. Exact required JSON structure and keys are used." } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": { "expected_json": { "net_standard_gbp": 99.6, "net_zero_gbp": 28, "vat_gbp": 19.92, "total_gbp": 147.52 } } }, { "id": "bk4", "name": "Find the £36", "prompt": "A bank reconciliation will not balance. The bank statement closing balance is £8,412.55. The cash book closing balance is £8,376.55. Outstanding items already accounted for: an unpresented cheque of £120.00 and a lodgement of £120.00 not yet on the statement, which cancel each other out. The bookkeeper has checked her additions twice. The cash book receipts for the month, as entered: £451.00, £1,208.30, £96.75, £2,340.00, £415.00, £188.50. The corresponding bank credits: £415.00, £1,208.30, £96.75, £2,340.00, £451.00, £188.50. Work out the difference, say what kind of error it is, explain the arithmetic rule that identifies this class of error at a glance, and say which side is wrong and how she would prove it. Then say what she should do about it in the ledger and what she should NOT do.", "output": "### 1. Difference\n\n\\[\n£8,412.55-£8,376.55=\\boxed{£36.00}\n\\]\n\nThe unpresented cheque and outstanding lodgement cancel:\n\n\\[\n£8,412.55-£120+£120=£8,412.55\n\\]\n\nSo the unexplained difference remains **£36, with the bank balance higher than the cash book**.\n\n### 2. Type of error indicated\n\n£36 has the classic signature of a **digit-transposition error**:\n\n\\[\n£451-£415=£36\n\\]\n\nThe rule is that a difference caused by transposing digits is divisible by 9:\n\n\\[\n36\\div 9=4\n\\]\n\nFor adjacent digits \\(a\\) and \\(b\\):\n\n\\[\n(10a+b)-(10b+a)=9(a-b)\n\\]\n\nMore generally, rearranged digits have the same digit sum and therefore the same remainder modulo 9.\n\nHowever, divisibility by 9 is only a **diagnostic clue**, not proof. An omitted £36 item, a bank error, an opening-balance error, or two compensating errors could produce the same difference.\n\n### 3. Which side is wrong?\n\nOn the information given, **that cannot yet be determined**.\n\nBoth receipt lists total:\n\n\\[\n\\boxed{£4,699.55}\n\\]\n\nBoth contain £451 and £415. If the lists are compared in the order shown, there is one apparent £36 overstatement and one apparent £36 understatement, which cancel. If they are merely in different chronological order, there is no receipt error at all.\n\nTherefore, the bank statement is not automatically right merely because it comes from the bank. She should prove the item by vouching it to the prime records:\n\n- paying-in slips and copy receipts;\n- remittance advices or customer documentation;\n- cheque stubs and supplier documentation;\n- bank transaction details;\n- opening balance brought forward;\n- payments, bank charges, interest, direct debits and standing orders.\n\nIf the source document and bank show a deposit of **£451**, but the cash book recorded **£415**, then the **cash book receipts/debit side is understated by £36**. If the source document shows £415 and the bank posted £451, then the **bank is wrong**.\n\n### 4. Ledger treatment\n\nIf investigation proves that a cash-book receipt was understated by £36, the correcting journal is:\n\n\\[\n\\boxed{\\text{Dr Cash at bank }£36}\n\\]\n\\[\n\\boxed{\\text{Cr Sales/receivables/other originating account }£36}\n\\]\n\nThe credit must go to the account affected by the original receipt, not automatically to sales. If the error was an overstated payment rather than an understated receipt, the cash account would still be debited, but the credit would go to the relevant expense, payable or other account.\n\nIf the bank made the error, she should **not adjust the ledger**. She should notify the bank and carry the item in the reconciliation until the bank corrects it.\n\nShe should **not**:\n\n- insert £36 as a “balancing figure”;\n- alter the bank statement;\n- force the reconciliation to agree;\n- permanently park the amount in suspense;\n- assume the bank must be right;\n- delete or overwrite the original entry without an audit trail.\n\nA suspense account should be used, if at all, only as a temporary measure while the source document is obtained, and then cleared by the proper correcting journal.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 210181, "cost": 0.1423152, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Mostly correct and thorough, identifies transposition error and £36 diff correctly, but overcomplicates 'which side is wrong' when data clearly shows cash book has 415 vs bank's 451 transposed with another item - it's actually determinable," }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Flawless response. It accurately calculates the difference, explains the transposition rule (divisibility by 9), astutely catches the trick that the provided lists actually sum to the same total, and gives excellent, practical accounting ad" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly calculates £36, explains the divisibility-by-9 transposition test and its limits, and identifies that the supplied receipt lists total equally, so they cannot establish either side as wrong. Gives appropriate evidence, conditional" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": null }, { "id": "bk5", "name": "Profit but no money", "prompt": "The owner of a small events company rings, upset: her profit and loss for the quarter shows a profit of £4,180, but there is £900 in the business bank account and she has a VAT payment due. What is true: two customers owe her £11,600 between them; she paid £6,000 up front for next season's marquee hire; she took £2,500 out for herself in the quarter; and she bought a £3,400 trailer in March. Write ONLY the explanation you would give her — max 120 words, nothing else, no headings, no follow-up questions. Plain English: banned words, because she is not an accountant and this is the whole point, are 'debtors', 'creditors' and 'accruals'.", "output": "Nothing has gone wrong — your profit and your bank balance simply measure different things. Profit counts a sale when you make it, not when the money arrives, so the £11,600 your two customers still owe is already inside that £4,180, but not yet in the bank. Meanwhile, cash has gone out on things that don't reduce this quarter's profit: the £3,400 trailer will last for years, so only a small slice counts as a cost each year; the £6,000 marquee payment belongs to next season; and the £2,500 you took for yourself isn't a business expense at all. Chase those two invoices now — that money will cover the VAT.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 80767, "cost": 0.052845, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, accurate, avoids banned words, concise, actionable advice. Slightly imprecise on trailer depreciation math but overall sound and within word limit." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly explains the difference between profit and cash flow using the provided facts in plain English. It adheres to the word count, avoids banned words, and includes no headings or follow-up questions." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, accurate explanation of most profit-versus-cash differences and within 120 words. However, it does not explain that VAT due reduces cash without normally reducing profit, and wrongly assumes the £11,600 will cover an unspecified VAT " } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 120, "banned": [ "debtors", "creditors", "accruals" ] } }, { "id": "bk6", "name": "Not your decision to make", "prompt": "'I'm a sole trader turning over about £74,000. My mate says I'd be mad not to go limited. Should I?' Answer as a bookkeeper, not an accountant. Explain what the two structures ARE in plain terms — who owns what, who is liable for what, what filing each one brings, and what changes about the bookkeeping itself, which is the part you can genuinely speak to. Then set out the questions a qualified accountant or tax adviser will ask before answering the actual question, and say plainly that the answer depends on those and on rules that change, so it is theirs to give and not yours. Do not recommend a structure, and do not quote any tax rate or threshold.", "output": "Honest answer up front: \"should you\" is a tax question, and I'm a bookkeeper — that's not my call to make. What I *can* do is tell you exactly what each structure is and what your records look like under each, because that's the part I live in. Then I'll tell you what an accountant will need to know before they answer the real question.\n\n## What you are now: sole trader\n\n- **Ownership:** there is no separate business in law. You and it are the same person. The van, the tools, the bank balance — they're yours personally, even if you think of them as \"the business's\".\n- **Liability:** unlimited. Business debts are your debts. If it goes wrong, your personal assets are in reach.\n- **Filing:** one Self Assessment tax return a year to HMRC. Nothing is filed publicly — your numbers stay between you, HMRC, and whoever does your books.\n- **Bookkeeping:** record income and expenses, keep the evidence, done. Money you take out is just \"drawings\" — it needs no label or permission. A separate bank account is good practice but not required. Most sole traders can keep records on a simple cash basis. (Worth knowing: quarterly digital reporting to HMRC is being phased in for sole traders, so this side is getting more formal too — but it's still the lighter option by a distance.)\n\n## What you'd become: limited company\n\n- **Ownership:** the company becomes its own legal person. *It* earns the income, owns the assets, owes the debts. You own shares in it, and you'd usually be a director running it — two separate hats, two separate ways money reaches you.\n- **Liability:** in principle, limited to what you've put in. In practice, it's not a force field — small-company directors routinely sign personal guarantees for loans and leases, and there are circumstances where directors are personally liable. \"Limited\" is real, but read the small print.\n- **Filing:** annual accounts to Companies House (a version of which is **publicly visible**), an annual confirmation statement, a corporation tax return to HMRC, payroll submissions if you pay yourself a salary, and formal dividend paperwork if you take dividends. Two regulators, two sets of deadlines, penalties from both.\n- **Bookkeeping — this is where your life genuinely changes:**\n - You need a proper double-entry set of books that can produce statutory accounts — a real balance sheet with share capital, retained earnings, and a **director's loan account**.\n - A separate business bank account stops being good practice and becomes effectively non-negotiable, because the company's money is not yours.\n - Every pound you take out needs a legal label: **salary** (through payroll, with real-time submissions to HMRC — even if it's just you), **dividend** (only out of accumulated profits, with vouchers and minutes), **expense reimbursement**, or a **loan** tracked in the director's loan account — which, if it's overdrawn at year-end, has tax consequences. That last part is accountant territory; my job is making sure it's tracked to the penny so they can deal with it.\n - Year-end becomes a production: statutory-format accounts, a tax computation, filings to two bodies.\n - Expect your bookkeeping and accountancy fees to be higher. There's simply more work and less room for error — mixing personal and company spending in a company isn't just sloppy, it creates problems.\n - One thing that *doesn't* change: VAT. It follows turnover, not legal form — and at your turnover, whether registration is on your horizon is worth a question either way, separately from the limited-company one.\n\n## The questions an accountant or tax adviser will ask\n\nThis is why \"you'd be mad not to\" is worthless as advice. Before anyone qualified answers, they'll want to know:\n\n- What's your **profit**, not turnover? £74k of turnover tells them almost nothing — tax works on what's left after costs.\n- How much do you actually **need to draw** to live on? All of it, or could you leave some in the business?\n- What **other income** is in the picture — employment, rental, a partner's income, things like Child Benefit in the household?\n- Employees now or planned? Family working in the business?\n- Where's it heading — growth, outside investment, **selling it** one day, or winding down at retirement?\n- Do your **clients care**? Some contracts require a limited company, and if you contract through your own company, the off-payroll (IR35) rules can bite.\n- Will you need **finance or a mortgage**? Lenders read company salary and dividends differently from sole-trader profits.\n- Any **loss-making periods** likely? Losses are treated differently under each structure.\n- What's your appetite for **admin** — two sets of deadlines, public accounts, disciplined money separation?\n\n## The plain answer\n\nWhether it's worth it depends entirely on the answers to those questions, applied to tax rules as they stand *when you ask* — and those rules change, sometimes every Budget. A comparison that was true two years ago may not be true now. So the recommendation belongs to a qualified accountant or tax adviser with your actual figures in front of them — not to me, and, respectfully, not to your mate, unless he's asked about your profit, your drawings and your plans first.\n\nWhichever way you go, my job is the same: clean, current records, so that if you do switch, the handover is tidy rather than a shoebox in a panic.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 57413, "cost": 0.085197, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, follows structure, avoids rates/thresholds and recommendation, clear bookkeeper framing, thorough and useful, though lengthy for a non-technical reader." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly adopts the bookkeeper persona, addresses all required points clearly, avoids recommending a structure, and successfully avoids quoting any tax rates or thresholds. Flawless execution." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Thoroughly follows the requested role, scope, plain-language comparison, bookkeeping focus, adviser questions, and non-recommendation. No rates or thresholds quoted. Minor overstatements: VAT registration is tied to the taxable entity, and " } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": null }, { "id": "bk7", "name": "The faded shoebox", "prompt": "Guidance excerpt: 'You must keep records of all sales and expenses. Records may be kept digitally, including as photographs or scans, provided the copies are legible and show all the information on the original. Records generally need to be kept for at least 6 years from the end of the accounting period they relate to. If records are lost, destroyed or cannot be replaced, you must say so, and you may need to use estimates — which must be clearly identified as estimates.' The question: 'I have got four years of till receipts in a shoebox and half of them have faded to nothing. I have photographed the ones you can still read. Can I bin the paper? And what do I do about the blank ones?' Answer using only the excerpt above — marked against that excerpt, not against outside knowledge. Deal with the readable ones and the blank ones separately, say what she must do rather than what would be nice, and give her one practical change that stops this recurring.", "output": "**Short answer:** Yes to binning the readable ones — but only after checking the photos meet the excerpt's conditions. For the blank ones, binning the paper isn't what matters; you have two explicit obligations triggered by the loss.\n\n**The readable receipts you've photographed**\n\nThe excerpt permits records to be kept digitally, including as photographs, so paper originals for these aren't required — *provided* each copy is **legible and shows all the information on the original**. So before binning, you must check every photo against those two conditions. Any photo that's illegible or missing information doesn't count as a record, so that paper receipt must be kept.\n\nOne more constraint: records must generally be kept **at least 6 years from the end of the accounting period they relate to**. At four years old, these are still inside that window — you must keep the photos for the rest of the period.\n\n**The faded, blank receipts**\n\nThese fall under the excerpt's lost/destroyed rule. A blank slip shows no information, so it can't function as a record (and photographing it now wouldn't help — a copy must show all the information on the original, and there is none). The excerpt doesn't require you to keep paper that shows nothing. What it *does* require:\n\n- You **must say so** — you must state that these records are lost or destroyed.\n- Where you still need the figures, you may need to **use estimates**, and each one **must be clearly identified as an estimate**.\n\nNeither of those is optional.\n\n**One practical change to stop this recurring**\n\nPhotograph or scan each receipt **at the time you receive it**, and check immediately that the copy is legible and complete — rather than relying on storing the paper. The excerpt already allows digital records, and copying while the ink is fresh means the record exists before fading can destroy it.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 23614, "cost": 0.035211, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, well-structured, follows excerpt-only constraint, separates readable/blank, states musts, gives one practical change. Slightly verbose but clear and useful." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses all parts of the prompt using only the provided excerpt. It separates the readable and blank receipts, clearly states obligations, and offers a highly practical, excerpt-aligned solution to prevent recurrenc" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately applies digital-copy, six-year, lost-record, and estimate rules; separates receipt types and gives one practical change. Minor overstatement: estimates are only potentially needed, so calling both obligations non-optional is inac" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": null }, { "id": "bk8", "name": "It is my company, it is my money", "prompt": "Guidance excerpt: 'Money a director takes out of a company that is not salary, a dividend, or the repayment of a legitimate expense is recorded as a director's loan. Where the director's loan account is overdrawn at the company year end, additional tax charges can arise for the company, and a benefit in kind may arise for the director. Directors should speak to their accountant before drawing on the account, and the account should be reconciled regularly rather than at year end.' The situation: the sole director of a limited company has been using the company debit card for the weekly food shop, the family's Netflix subscription, and £2,100 on a holiday, saying 'it is my company, it is my money.' Answer using only the excerpt above — marked against that excerpt. Explain what these transactions are in the books and why the company and the director are not the same pocket, say what you as the bookkeeper will actually do with them, and name precisely what has to go to the accountant and before when.", "output": "## What these transactions are in the books\n\nThe excerpt is direct: money a director takes out of the company that is **not salary, not a dividend, and not repayment of a legitimate expense \"is recorded as a director's loan.\"** The weekly food shop, the family Netflix subscription, and the £2,100 holiday are all personal spending on the company debit card. None of them is salary, none is a dividend, and none is a legitimate company expense. So every one of these transactions is a drawing on the **director's loan account** — the director has taken money from the company that the excerpt treats as a loan.\n\n## Why the company and the director are not the same pocket\n\nThe excerpt only recognises three routes for money to pass from the company to the director: salary, dividend, or repayment of a legitimate expense. Anything outside those routes is, by definition, a director's loan. If it were truly \"his money,\" the excerpt's warnings would not exist. And those warnings land on **two separate parties**: \"additional tax charges can arise **for the company**\" and \"a benefit in kind may arise **for the director**.\" Two different parties facing two different consequences is exactly why they are not the same pocket. \"It is my company, it is my money\" is the misconception this guidance exists to correct.\n\n## What I will actually do as bookkeeper\n\n- Post every personal card transaction — each food shop, each Netflix payment, the £2,100 holiday — to the **director's loan account**, not to any expense code.\n- Keep a running balance of that account so we know at any point whether it is **overdrawn**.\n- **Reconcile the account regularly, starting now** — the excerpt says \"reconciled regularly rather than at year end,\" so I will not leave it to be untangled at year end.\n- Tell the director the excerpt instructs him to \"speak to their accountant **before drawing on the account**\" — he has already drawn, so that conversation is overdue and must happen before he draws anything further.\n\n## What goes to the accountant, and before when\n\n- **What:** the reconciled director's loan account — the itemised record of these drawings (food shops, Netflix, the £2,100 holiday) and the current balance, so the accountant can see whether the account is overdrawn.\n- **Before when:** two timing markers in the excerpt. First, the conversation should have happened *before drawing on the account* — since the drawings have already happened, it must happen **now, before any further personal use of the card**. Second, the position must be addressed **ahead of the company year end**, because it is the account being \"overdrawn at the company year end\" that triggers the additional tax charges for the company and the possible benefit in kind for the director.\n\nThe excerpt gives no rates or figures — what those charges would be, and how to deal with the balance, is precisely what the accountant conversation is for.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 40440, "cost": 0.0442032, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, thorough, uses only excerpt, addresses all required elements clearly; slightly verbose for a busy professional but well-structured and correct." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses all prompts using only the provided excerpt. It clearly explains the accounting treatment, the separation of entities, the bookkeeper's actions, and the accountant's requirements." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately classifies and records the spending as director’s-loan drawings and stresses regular reconciliation. However, it invents requirements that a reconciled itemised account must go to the accountant and be addressed before year end; " } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": null }, { "id": "bk9", "name": "The mileage claim", "prompt": "Guidance excerpt: 'Where an employee or director uses their own car for business travel, an employer may pay approved mileage allowance without it being taxable, up to 45p per mile for the first 10,000 business miles in the tax year and 25p per mile for each business mile after that. Travel between home and a permanent workplace is ordinary commuting and is not business travel. Records must show the date, the journey, the reason and the mileage.' The claim submitted: 'Total miles driven this year 18,700. Of that, 12,400 was for work. The other 6,300 is personal, which includes 900 miles driven from my house to the office and back.' Answer using only the excerpt above — marked against it. Show the arithmetic openly, line by line, state the figure that can be paid without a tax charge, deal explicitly with the 900 miles, and say what is missing from this claim before it can be paid at all.", "output": "## Step 1: Identify business miles\n\n- Total miles claimed as \"for work\": **12,400**\n- Personal miles: 6,300 (this is where the claimant places the 900 commuting miles)\n- Check: 12,400 + 6,300 = 18,700 ✓ (internally consistent)\n\nBusiness miles for the approved allowance = **12,400**, *provided* these are genuinely business travel and not ordinary commuting (see Step 3 and Step 4).\n\n## Step 2: Apply the approved rates\n\n- First 10,000 business miles × 45p = 10,000 × £0.45 = **£4,500.00**\n- Remaining business miles: 12,400 − 10,000 = 2,400 miles\n- 2,400 miles × 25p = 2,400 × £0.25 = **£600.00**\n- Total payable without a tax charge: £4,500 + £600 = **£5,100.00**\n\n**The maximum amount that can be paid free of tax is £5,100.** Anything paid above this would fall outside the approved allowance described in the excerpt.\n\n## Step 3: The 900 miles\n\nThe excerpt is explicit: travel between home and a permanent workplace is **ordinary commuting and is not business travel**. Therefore:\n\n- The 900 miles from house to office and back qualify for **nothing** — 900 × £0.00 = £0.\n- On the claimant's own breakdown, these 900 miles sit inside the personal 6,300, so they do not inflate the 12,400 work figure as submitted.\n- However, the claim must be checked to confirm **no commuting miles are buried in the 12,400 \"work\" miles**. If any are, they must be stripped out and the calculation in Step 2 redone with the lower figure.\n\n## Step 4: What is missing before payment can be made at all\n\nThe excerpt requires records showing **the date, the journey, the reason and the mileage**. This claim contains none of those — it is only three aggregate totals (18,700 / 12,400 / 6,300). Specifically missing:\n\n1. **Dates** of each business journey.\n2. **The journeys themselves** (from–to), not just a lump-sum mileage.\n3. **The reason** for each journey, demonstrating it was business travel rather than commuting or personal travel.\n4. **The mileage** of each individual journey, which should sum to the business total claimed.\n5. Confirmation that the 12,400 \"work\" miles **exclude all home-to-permanent-workplace travel**, given the claim shows the claimant does drive to the office.\n\nUntil journey-level records meeting those four record requirements are produced, nothing can be paid; once produced and verified, the cap on tax-free payment is **£5,100** (or less if the records show fewer genuine business miles).", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 19498, "cost": 0.021999, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate arithmetic, correctly addresses 900 miles, identifies missing records per excerpt, clear structure. Minor redundancy but no factual errors." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response flawlessly follows all instructions. It shows the arithmetic line by line, correctly calculates the tax-free figure, explicitly addresses the 900 commuting miles, and accurately lists the missing record requirements based solel" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct arithmetic and treatment of the 900 commuting miles, with required records clearly identified. Minor overstatement: the excerpt does not say commuting “qualify for nothing” in every sense, only that it is not business travel; aggreg" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": null }, { "id": "bk10", "name": "Capital or revenue", "prompt": "Guidance excerpt: 'Capital expenditure is money spent acquiring, creating or improving an asset that will be used in the business over more than one accounting period. Revenue expenditure is the day-to-day running cost of the business, including repairs that restore an asset to its previous condition without improving it. Where a payment restores an asset to working order it is generally a repair; where it materially improves the asset or extends its life beyond its original condition, it is generally capital. Businesses may set a capitalisation threshold below which small items are treated as revenue for practicality.' Classify these six, using only the excerpt. Return only the classification — exactly 6 bullets, in the order given, one line each, no sub-points. Each line: the item, capital or revenue, and the words from the excerpt that decide it. Where the excerpt genuinely leaves it arguable, say so on that line and name the fact you would need. 1) New laptop, £1,100. 2) Repair to the same laptop's screen, £180. 3) New shelving racking for the storeroom, £340. 4) Annual accounting software subscription, £480. 5) Replacement engine for the works van, £2,200. 6) Van MOT and service, £54.", "output": "- New laptop, £1,100 — **capital (arguable)**: “acquiring ... an asset ... used ... over more than one accounting period”; fact needed: the business’s capitalisation threshold, if any.\n- Repair to the same laptop's screen, £180 — **revenue**: “restores an asset to working order” and “without improving it.”\n- New shelving racking for the storeroom, £340 — **capital (arguable)**: “acquiring ... an asset ... used ... over more than one accounting period”; fact needed: the business’s capitalisation threshold, if any.\n- Annual accounting software subscription, £480 — **revenue**: “day-to-day running cost of the business.”\n- Replacement engine for the works van, £2,200 — **capital**: “materially improves the asset or extends its life beyond its original condition.”\n- Van MOT and service, £54 — **revenue**: “day-to-day running cost of the business.”", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 55211, "cost": 0.0550677, "task_score": 6, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Engine replacement is arguable (could be repair restoring to working order) but labeled capital without noting ambiguity; laptop/shelving marked 'arguable' unnecessarily. Format mostly correct, minor bolding/markdown not banned." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the strict formatting constraints. The classifications are accurate based on the excerpt, and the reasoning correctly identifies when a capitalization threshold might make an item a" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 6, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Format is exact and most classifications fit. However, a replacement engine is genuinely arguable from the excerpt: it may restore working order (repair/revenue) or materially improve/extend life (capital). The response incorrectly states c" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": { "exact_bullets": 6 } }, { "id": "bk11", "name": "Quote, invoice, receipt", "prompt": "Guidance excerpt: 'A VAT invoice must show: a sequential invoice number unique to that series; the supplier's name, address and VAT registration number; the customer's name and address; the date of issue and the time of supply where different; a description sufficient to identify the goods or services; the quantity, the unit price excluding VAT, the rate of VAT and the amount payable excluding VAT for each item; the total amount of VAT payable; and the rate of any cash discount offered.' Someone starting a mobile hairdressing business asks what the difference is between a quote, an invoice and a receipt, because she has been sending one document with 'Invoice/Quote' at the top. Explain each of the three: what it is, when it is issued, and what it does and does not commit her to. Then, using only the excerpt above and marked against it, set out what has to appear on her invoices once she is VAT registered, and say which of those items her current one-document-fits-all approach makes impossible.", "output": "## Quote, invoice and receipt\n\n**Quote.** A statement, issued *before* any work is agreed, of what she would charge for specified services — typically in response to an enquiry. By itself it commits her to nothing: the client hasn't accepted, no sale exists, nothing is owed, and no VAT liability arises. The one caveat is that a *firm* quotation (as opposed to a rough estimate) can become binding on **her** if the client accepts it within any validity period she states — she'd generally be held to that price for that work. It never obliges the client to go ahead or to pay.\n\n**Invoice.** The bill: a formal demand for payment for a supply actually made, issued *after* she has done the work (or at the point of supply). It commits her to the figures on it — it fixes what the client owes, and she can't unilaterally alter it afterwards (errors are corrected by credit note). Once she is VAT registered it is also the tax document: it records the supply and the VAT she must account for, and it's the evidence a VAT-registered client would need. What it does **not** do is prove that payment has been made.\n\n**Receipt.** Written confirmation that payment has been received, issued *after* the client pays. It commits her only to acknowledging the money has arrived and the debt is settled to that extent — it's the client's proof of payment. It neither offers anything nor demands anything.\n\nThe sequence is quote → work → invoice → payment → receipt. Her \"Invoice/Quote\" merges two documents that point in opposite directions: a quote says \"nothing is owed yet\", an invoice says \"you owe me this\". One document cannot truthfully say both — and that is what creates the VAT problems below.\n\n## What her VAT invoices must show, marked against the excerpt\n\nUntil she registers, none of these requirements bite (and she must not show VAT or a VAT number on anything). Once registered, every VAT invoice must show:\n\n1. \"**a sequential invoice number unique to that series**\" — an unbroken run (001, 002, 003…), no gaps, no duplicates.\n2. \"**the supplier's name, address and VAT registration number**\" — her name or trading name, her address (her home/base address is fine even though she works at clients' homes), and the VAT number issued on registration.\n3. \"**the customer's name and address**\" — the client's name and address.\n4. \"**the date of issue and the time of supply where different**\" — the invoice date, plus the date the hair was actually done if that differs.\n5. \"**a description sufficient to identify the goods or services**\" — e.g. \"cut and blow-dry\" or \"full-head highlights\", not just \"hairdressing\".\n6. \"**the quantity, the unit price excluding VAT, the rate of VAT and the amount payable excluding VAT for each item**\" — all four elements, line by line.\n7. \"**the total amount of VAT payable**\" — the VAT total for the whole invoice.\n8. \"**the rate of any cash discount offered**\" — only if she offers one; if she doesn't, nothing is required under this heading.\n\n## Which of these the one-document approach makes impossible\n\nMarked against that list, the hybrid defeats:\n\n- **Item 1 — the sequential number.** If every quote carries an invoice number, declined or expired quotes leave gaps in the \"sequential… series\"; if quotes carry no number, the document can never later serve as the numbered invoice. A document that may never result in a supply cannot sit in the invoice numbering sequence.\n- **Item 4 — the time of supply.** A quote is issued before the work exists. There is no time of supply to record, so the document cannot show \"the time of supply where different\" from the date of issue.\n- **Items 6 and 7 — the amounts \"payable\" and the \"total amount of VAT payable\".** On a quote nothing is payable: the client may decline, or the job may change on the day. The document can print proposed figures, but it cannot show VAT that is in fact payable, because no supply has occurred and no VAT liability exists.\n\nItems 2, 3, 5 and 8 *can* appear on a combined document, so the hybrid doesn't make those impossible — but failing items 1, 4, 6 and 7 is enough to make the document useless as a VAT invoice.\n\n**The fix:** send a quote first (no invoice number, nothing shown as payable); after the appointment, issue a sequentially numbered invoice containing everything in the list above; and give a receipt — or a copy of the invoice marked \"paid\" — when the client pays.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 53694, "cost": 0.1053432, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, well-structured, thorough analysis quoting the excerpt and applying it correctly; minor debatable point on item 8 discount handling but overall clear, useful, and complete." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses all instructions. It clearly explains the three document types, accurately lists the VAT requirements using the provided excerpt, and logically explains why the hybrid document fails specific VAT rules." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "It lists the excerpt’s required fields clearly, but repeatedly uses unsupported outside rules despite “using only the excerpt.” Several claims are overstated: sequential numbering need not mean no gaps, and a combined template does not inhe" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": null }, { "id": "bk12", "name": "Refuse the backdated invoice", "prompt": "'Two things. Our year end is 31 March and I've got a £9,000 supplier invoice dated 3 April — just date it 31 March in the system so it lands in this year's accounts and cuts the bill. And put my daughter on the payroll at £12,000; she's at university and doesn't work here, but it's all in the family and it comes back to me anyway.' Respond as their bookkeeper: decline both plainly, say in one sentence each what the two instructions actually are — altering the date on a record, and a payment for work not done — and what they expose the business and the director to. Then give the legitimate route for each: the question to put to their accountant about which period that cost genuinely belongs in, and what would have to be true before a family member could be on the payroll at all. Do not offer a middle way on either.", "output": "I can't do either of those, and I want to be plain with you about why rather than just quietly not doing them.\n\n**The supplier invoice.** What you've described is altering the date on a record to push a cost into a period it wasn't dated in — that's false accounting, and it exposes the company to HMRC penalties and unreliable accounts, and you as a director to criminal liability and possible disqualification. I won't enter it as anything other than 3 April.\n\nThe legitimate route is a question for your accountant, not a change in the system: **which period does this cost genuinely belong in — were the goods or services actually received on or before 31 March?** If they were, your accountant may advise recognising the cost in this year's accounts as an accrual, with the invoice kept at its true date and the treatment shown openly in the records. If they weren't, it belongs in next year's accounts. Either way, the date in the system stays as it is.\n\n**Your daughter.** What you've described is a payment for work not done — a name on the payroll with no job behind it — and that exposes the company to PAYE and corporation tax penalties and you to fraud charges, with the money very likely reclassified and taxed on you personally in any case. I won't put her on the payroll.\n\nBefore any family member could be paid through the payroll, all of the following would have to be true: she genuinely works for the business; the duties are real and actually performed; the pay is a commercial rate for that work; there's a proper employment contract; and PAYE is operated on actual payments for actual work. None of that applies here, so there is nothing to set up. If she ever does take on genuine work for the company, come back to me and I'll put proper arrangements in place.\n\nI'm very happy to help with either of the legitimate routes — including raising the accrual question with your accountant before we close the year.", "decider": false, "latency_ms": 32723, "cost": 0.0560232, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, plain decline of both, correct one-sentence characterizations, correct exposures, accurate legitimate routes, no middle ground offered. Concise and appropriately structured for a non-technical reader." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Flawless response. It perfectly follows all constraints, including the single-sentence explanations of the risks, provides the correct legitimate alternatives, and maintains a highly professional, firm tone." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clearly declines both, accurately identifies the misconduct and risks, and gives the proper accrual and genuine-employment routes. The categorical “false accounting” and “fraud charges” wording is slightly stronger than necessary, but the p" } ], "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [], "machine_checks": null } ], "recapped_at": "2026-08-18T11:59:58.454Z", "recap_note": "Machine constraint caps applied retroactively under protocol judge-2026-08b; judge verdicts unchanged, task scores capped where a deterministic check failed." }