{ "entity": "mistral-medium-3-5", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Research", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks4/research", "model": "mistralai/mistral-medium-3-5", "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": 83, "caps": 0, "cost_usd": 0.179, "started_at": "2026-08-16T15:08:54.488Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-16T15:09:29.494Z", "tasks": [ { "id": "rs1", "name": "Make it answerable", "prompt": "'Is coffee bad for you?' is not a researchable question. Turn it into exactly 3 properly researchable questions, numbered 1-3, one line each, no sub-points — each must specify who (the population), what (the exposure and amount), and which outcome is being measured.", "output": "1. In healthy adults aged 18-65, does consuming 3 cups (240 ml each) of black coffee daily for 12 months increase the risk of hypertension compared to non-coffee drinkers?\n\n2. Among pregnant women in their second trimester, does drinking 200 mg of caffeine (≈2 cups of coffee) per day affect the incidence of low birth weight (<2500g) in newborns?\n\n3. In individuals with type 2 diabetes, does long-term consumption of 1 cup (240 ml) of coffee with 10g added sugar daily influence HbA1c levels over 6 months?", "latency_ms": 1362, "cost": 0.0011625, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets format exactly: 3 numbered, one line each, specifies population, exposure/amount, and outcome clearly and accurately." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing exactly three well-formulated, single-line research questions that clearly specify the population, exposure/amount, and outcome without any sub-points." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All three are numbered, researchable, and specify populations, quantified exposures, and measurable outcomes. Minor issue: question 2 measures caffeine rather than coffee specifically, though it links the dose to coffee." } ], "machine_checks": { "exact_bullets": 3 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs2", "name": "Rank the sources", "prompt": "You are researching whether standing desks reduce back pain. Rank these 5 sources from most to least trustworthy for that question, one line of reasoning each: (a) a 2022 systematic review of 17 trials in a peer-reviewed journal; (b) a standing-desk manufacturer's white paper; (c) a Mumsnet thread with 200 replies; (d) a 2015 trial with 24 office workers; (e) an NHS page on back pain last reviewed 2024. Then say which ONE you would cite to a sceptical reader and why.", "output": "**Ranking from most to least trustworthy:**\n\n1. **(a) 2022 systematic review of 17 trials in a peer-reviewed journal** – Systematic reviews aggregate high-quality evidence, minimizing bias and providing robust conclusions.\n2. **(e) NHS page on back pain last reviewed 2024** – NHS content is evidence-based and regularly updated, though less specific to standing desks.\n3. **(d) 2015 trial with 24 office workers** – A primary study, but small sample size and age limit its reliability.\n4. **(b) Standing-desk manufacturer's white paper** – Likely biased toward promoting their product, with potential conflicts of interest.\n5. **(c) Mumsnet thread with 200 replies** – Anecdotal, unmoderated, and prone to misinformation.\n\n**To cite to a sceptical reader:** **(a) the 2022 systematic review**—it’s the most rigorous, comprehensive, and least biased source, synthesizing multiple trials to answer the exact question.", "latency_ms": 2119, "cost": 0.0018915, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correct ranking and reasoning, follows instructions, concise and clear; minor lack of depth in reasoning lines but overall strong and useful." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, ranking the sources logically with concise, one-line reasoning for each. It clearly identifies the best source to cite and provides a strong justification." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly prioritizes the systematic review and identifies manufacturer conflict and anecdotal limitations. The NHS page may be less useful than the small direct trial for this specific question, and the review’s trial quality cannot be ass" } ], "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": "**Summary of Evidence on Sleep and Infection Risk**\n\nThe evidence suggests a possible link between short sleep and higher infection risk, but findings are mixed. Study A (2021, 12,000 adults, 5 years) found a 20% higher cold rate in those sleeping under 6 hours, while Study B (2019, 300 students, one term) found no significant link. Study C (2023, review of 40 studies) reported a consistent association but noted most studies couldn’t rule out stress as a confounder—it may cause both poor sleep and illness. Thus, while short sleep *might* increase infection risk, the relationship isn’t proven causal, and stress (or other factors) could explain the observed patterns. More rigorous research is needed.", "latency_ms": 1370, "cost": 0.001518, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, balanced summary covering all three studies, disagreement, and confounder; concise and clear, within word limit; minor stylistic header not requested." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly summarizes the three studies within the 120-word limit (113 words). It accurately reflects the disagreement and the stress confounder, providing a clear, concise, and highly useful summary for a non-technical professi" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately summarizes all three studies, clearly presents the disagreement, gives stress appropriate weight as a plausible confounder, and avoids claiming causation. It is concise, useful, and under 120 words." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 120 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs4", "name": "Tear down the survey", "prompt": "A press release claims: 'Study proves 92% of Britons love exercising. Researchers surveyed 40 members of a Shoreditch gym, recruited through the gym's Instagram page.' List the 3 biggest methodological problems as bullets, one line each, most fatal first. No sub-points.", "output": "- **Non-representative sample**: The survey only includes gym members from a single trendy London area, not the general British population.\n- **Selection bias**: Recruiting via Instagram favors socially active, fitness-engaged individuals, skewing results.\n- **Small sample size**: 40 respondents are insufficient to generalize findings to 67 million Britons.", "latency_ms": 959, "cost": 0.000684, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise, follows format with three single-line bullets, correctly ordered by severity. Minor stylistic bolding not requested but harmless." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, accurately identifying the three most fatal methodological flaws in order of severity. It formats them as single-line bullets without sub-points, remaining clear, concise, and highly useful." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Correctly identifies the central representativeness, recruitment, and sample-size problems in the required format. “Trendy” is unnecessary and Instagram selection bias partly overlaps with the gym-member sampling bias, but the answer remain" } ], "machine_checks": { "exact_bullets": 3 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs5", "name": "Correlation for the neighbour", "prompt": "A headline reads: 'People who drink red wine live longer, study finds.' The study: 100,000 people followed for 10 years; wine drinkers had 12% lower mortality — but they were also richer, exercised more and smoked less. Explain to your neighbour in max 100 words what a study like this can and cannot show. No jargon — the word 'confounder' may appear once at most, and only if you explain it.", "output": "This study shows that red wine drinkers lived longer, but it doesn’t prove wine caused it. The wine drinkers were also richer, exercised more, and smoked less—these things likely helped them live longer too. So, the study can’t tell if wine itself is the reason, or if it’s just part of a healthier lifestyle.\n\nWhat it *can* show: a link between wine and longer life. What it *can’t*: that wine alone makes you live longer. Other factors (like wealth or exercise) might be the real reason—a \"confounder\" if you will. More research is needed to be sure.", "latency_ms": 1176, "cost": 0.001143, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, respects constraint (confounder used once, briefly explained). Slightly exceeds ideal concision but under 100 words. Minor: explanation of confounder is terse but acceptable." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately explains correlation vs. causation in plain language. Follows the word count constraint (97 words) and correctly uses and explains the allowed term 'confounder' exactly once. Highly useful and clear." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately distinguishes an observed link from proof of cause, clearly identifies healthier and wealthier lifestyles as alternative explanations, and stays within 100 words. Minor weakness: “more research” is vague, and the confounder expla" } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 100 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs6", "name": "Plan the dig", "prompt": "Someone wants to trace the history of their 1930s semi in Leicester — who built it, who has lived there, what stood on the land before. Lay out the kinds of sources and places in the UK that answer each part (deeds, census-type records, old maps, local archives, newspaper archives), what each one can and cannot tell them, and the sensible order to work in. No URLs — the shape of the search, not links.", "output": "Tracing the history of a 1930s semi-detached house in Leicester involves piecing together information from multiple sources, each with its own strengths and limitations. Below is a structured approach, outlining the **types of sources**, what they can and cannot reveal, and the **logical order** to tackle the research.\n\n---\n\n### **1. Establish the Basics: Property Ownership & Construction**\n**Goal:** Confirm when the house was built, who built it, and early ownership.\n\n#### **Sources:**\n- **Title Deeds & Land Registry Records**\n - *What they can tell you:* Current and past ownership, dates of sale, sometimes the builder/developer (if noted in conveyancing documents). Post-1990 deeds may include plans or covenants (e.g., restrictions on alterations).\n - *Limitations:* Pre-1990 deeds may be incomplete or lost. Rarely detail occupants (only owners). Won’t show who lived there unless a sale coincided with a death/inheritance.\n - *Where to find:* Land Registry (for current title), solicitor/conveyancer who handled past sales, or the homeowner’s mortgage lender. Older deeds may be with the seller or in a solicitor’s archive.\n\n- **Building Control/Planning Records (Leicester City Council)**\n - *What they can tell you:* Applications for construction (1930s builds may have original plans), builder’s name, dates of approval/construction. Post-war alterations may also be recorded.\n - *Limitations:* Not all 1930s builds required planning permission (rules were looser then). Records may have been destroyed in WWII or later clear-outs.\n - *Where to find:* Local authority archives (Leicester City Council’s planning department or historic records office).\n\n- **Rate Books (Local Authority Archives)**\n - *What they can tell you:* Annual lists of property owners and occupiers, with property values (useful for tracking changes in ownership/tenancy between censuses). Often include the name of the builder if the house was new.\n - *Limitations:* Stopped being systematically kept after the 1970s. May not distinguish between owner and tenant.\n - *Where to find:* Leicester City Archives or Leicestershire Record Office.\n\n#### **Order:**\nStart with **Land Registry** (current deeds) → **Council planning/building control** (construction details) → **Rate books** (early owners/occupiers).\n\n---\n\n### **2. Identify Past Residents**\n**Goal:** Find out who lived in the house, and when.\n\n#### **Sources:**\n- **Census Returns (1921, 1931, 1939 Register)**\n - *What they can tell you:* Snapshots of occupants every 10 years (1931 is closest to the build date). The 1939 Register (a wartime census) includes names, ages, occupations, and sometimes marital status.\n - *Limitations:* 1931 census is not yet public (due 2032). 1921 census is the latest available. The 1939 Register may have redactions for living individuals.\n - *Where to find:* The National Archives (Kew) or local archives (microfilm copies). Access to 1939 Register is via online services (but you’ll need the address).\n\n- **Electoral Rolls**\n - *What they can tell you:* Annual lists of eligible voters (1918 onwards for women, 1832 for men). Can show occupants between censuses.\n - *Limitations:* Only includes those registered to vote (excludes some women pre-1918, non-citizens, or those who opted out). Post-2001 rolls are restricted.\n - *Where to find:* Local archives (Leicester) or the British Library.\n\n- **Local Directories (e.g., Kelly’s, White’s)**\n - *What they can tell you:* Lists of prominent residents, businesses, and sometimes street-by-street occupants (more common for wealthier areas).\n - *Limitations:* Not comprehensive—often missed renters or working-class households.\n - *Where to find:* Leicester City Archives or Leicestershire Record Office.\n\n- **Newspaper Archives**\n - *What they can tell you:* Mentions of residents in local news (e.g., births, marriages, deaths, court cases, social events). May reference the address.\n - *Limitations:* Hit-and-miss unless the resident was notable. Requires keyword searches (e.g., street name + surname).\n - *Where to find:* Leicester Mercury archives (local libraries or the British Newspaper Archive).\n\n#### **Order:**\n**1939 Register** (if house was built by then) → **Electoral rolls** (fill gaps between censuses) → **Newspapers** (for colour on residents) → **Directories** (if the area was middle-class).\n\n---\n\n### **3. Discover What Stood on the Land Before**\n**Goal:** Identify previous land use (e.g., farmland, older buildings, allotments).\n\n#### **Sources:**\n- **Historic Maps**\n - *What they can tell you:*\n - **Ordnance Survey (OS) Maps:** Show field boundaries, buildings, and land use. The 1:2,500 scale maps (from 1880s onwards) are most detailed.\n - **Tithe Maps (1830s–1850s):** Show land ownership and use (e.g., arable, pasture) before urbanisation.\n - **Enclosure Maps (18th–19th century):** For Leicester, these may show how common land was divided.\n - *Limitations:* OS maps may not label every building. Tithe/enclosure maps predate the 1930s but show rural land use.\n - *Where to find:* Leicestershire Record Office, Leicester City Archives, or The National Archives.\n\n- **Local History Books & Theses**\n - *What they can tell you:* Academic or amateur histories of Leicester’s suburban expansion in the 1920s–30s may mention developers or land sales.\n - *Limitations:* Patchy coverage; depends on prior research.\n - *Where to find:* Leicester University Library, local studies sections in public libraries.\n\n- **Sale Catalogues & Auction Records**\n - *What they can tell you:* If the land was sold for development, catalogues may describe previous use (e.g., \"former market garden\").\n - *Limitations:* Rarely survive unless the sale was notable.\n - *Where to find:* Leicestershire Record Office.\n\n#### **Order:**\n**OS Maps** (start with 1920s–1930s to see the transition) → **Tithe/Enclosure Maps** (for pre-urban land use) → **Local history books** (for context).\n\n---\n---\n### **4. Add Context: The Builder & Local Development**\n**Goal:** Understand who built the house and why (e.g., speculative developer, council housing, self-build).\n\n#### **Sources:**\n- **Builder’s/Developer’s Records**\n - *What they can tell you:* If the house was part of a larger estate, the builder’s name might appear in local newspapers (adverts for new homes) or in **building control records**.\n - *Limitations:* Small builders rarely left archives. Many 1930s semis were built by speculative firms with no surviving records.\n - *Where to find:* Leicester Mercury archives, council planning departments.\n\n- **Local Authority Housing Reports**\n - *What they can tell you:* If the area was part of a council or private housing scheme (e.g., slum clearance, garden suburbs), reports may explain the development.\n - *Limitations:* Unlikely for a typical 1930s private semi.\n - *Where to find:* Leicester City Archives.\n\n- **Photographs & Postcards**\n - *What they can tell you:* Visual evidence of the street’s construction or earlier land use.\n - *Limitations:* Rare for ordinary streets unless part of a larger project.\n - *Where to find:* Leicester City Archives, local history groups.\n\n#### **Order:**\n**Newspaper adverts** (for builder’s name) → **Council reports** (if applicable) → **Photographs**.\n\n---\n---\n### **5. Fill in Gaps: Oral History & Community Knowledge**\n**Goal:** Uncover stories not in official records.\n\n#### **Sources:**\n- **Local History Societies**\n - *What they can tell you:* Members may recall the street’s development or know past residents.\n - *Where to find:* Leicester & Leicestershire Archaeological Society, or neighbourhood groups.\n\n- **Neighbours & Long-Term Residents**\n - *What they can tell you:* Anecdotes about previous occupants or changes to the house.\n - *Limitations:* Memory is unreliable; stories may be apocryphal.\n\n- **School/Church Records**\n - *What they can tell you:* If residents were involved in local institutions (e.g., church marriage records, school admission logs).\n - *Limitations:* Privacy restrictions for recent records.\n - *Where to find:* Parish archives, Leicester City Archives.\n\n---\n---\n### **Sensible Research Order**\n1. **Start at Home**\n - Check **deeds** (current and past) for builder’s name, sale dates, and covenants.\n - Note any **architectural clues** (e.g., identical houses on the street suggest a single developer).\n\n2. **Confirm Construction & Early Ownership**\n - **Land Registry** → **Council planning/building control** → **Rate books**.\n\n3. **Trace Residents**\n - **1939 Register** (if built by then) → **Electoral rolls** (1920s–1960s) → **Census (1921)** → **Newspapers/directories**.\n\n4. **Investigate the Land Before**\n - **OS Maps** (1920s vs. 1880s) → **Tithe/Enclosure Maps** → **Local history books**.\n\n5. **Contextualise the Builder & Development**\n - **Newspaper archives** (adverts, articles) → **Council housing reports** (if relevant).\n\n6. **Add Colour**\n - **Oral history** (neighbours, local societies) → **Photographs**.\n\n---\n---\n### **Key Limitations to Remember**\n- **Privacy:** Post-1921 census data is restricted; electoral rolls post-2001 are closed.\n- **Survival:** Many pre-WWII records were destroyed (e.g., Leicester’s WWII bombing damaged some archives).\n- **Class Bias:** Directories and newspapers often ignore working-class residents.\n- **Urban Expansion:** 1930s semis were often built on former agricultural land or older suburban plots—maps are critical.\n\nBy working methodically from **property records → residents → land history → context**, you’ll build the most complete picture possible. Local archives (Leicester City and Leicestershire Record Office) will be your most valuable physical resources.", "latency_ms": 20539, "cost": 0.0182625, "task_score": 6, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": null, "violates": null, "reasoning": "unparseable/failed" }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Includes a major factual error: the 1931 census for England was destroyed in WWII, not closed until 2032. Additionally, suggesting the 1921 census to find residents of a 1930s house is logically flawed." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Thorough, well-structured and useful, with sensible source types and sequencing. However, it wrongly says the 1931 census will be public in 2032: it was destroyed by fire. Some Land Registry and post-2001 electoral-roll claims are oversimpl" } ], "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 lack real-time access to databases or memory of past conversations.\n\nInvented citations mislead readers, waste time, and undermine trust in research.\n\nTo find the paper:\n1. **Search** the study’s title or keywords (e.g., *\"2021 sleep study\"*) on **Google Scholar** or **PubMed**.\n2. **Verify** the DOI, journal, and pages in the official publication or database (e.g., Crossref).", "latency_ms": 1078, "cost": 0.000957, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, accurate, concise, follows structure and word limit; two-step search guidance appropriate; minor lack of specificity on 'what goes wrong' but overall solid." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, staying under the 90-word limit (71 words). It clearly explains the limitations, the dangers of AI hallucinations, and provides a concise two-step search strategy." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately states the limitation, explains harms of fabricated citations, and gives a clear two-step search-and-verify process within 90 words. Minor limitation: suggested search terms are very broad and may not efficiently identify the spe" } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 90 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "rs8", "name": "Structure the evidence", "prompt": "Turn these findings into JSON — reply with ONLY valid JSON, an array of objects with keys source, year, sample_size, finding (finding is one sentence): 'The Whitworth trial (2020) followed 850 runners and found calf strengthening halved recurrence of achilles injury. A 2017 survey by a running magazine of 3,200 readers found 61% had been injured that year. Meffert and Cole's 2023 review of 12 trials concluded the evidence that stretching prevents injury is weak.'", "output": "```json\n[\n {\n \"source\": \"The Whitworth trial\",\n \"year\": 2020,\n \"sample_size\": 850,\n \"finding\": \"Calf strengthening halved recurrence of achilles injury.\"\n },\n {\n \"source\": \"A running magazine survey\",\n \"year\": 2017,\n \"sample_size\": 3200,\n \"finding\": \"61% of readers had been injured that year.\"\n },\n {\n \"source\": \"Meffert and Cole's review\",\n \"year\": 2023,\n \"sample_size\": 12,\n \"finding\": \"The evidence that stretching prevents injury is weak.\"\n }\n]\n```", "latency_ms": 897, "cost": 0.0014085, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, well-structured JSON matching required keys and one-sentence findings; minor wrapping in markdown code fence violates 'ONLY valid JSON' instruction." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The response includes markdown code blocks (```json ... ```), violating the constraint to reply with ONLY valid JSON. Otherwise, the extraction is accurate and follows the requested schema." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Valid JSON array with all required keys, correct years and sample sizes, and each finding is a single accurate 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 currently use the village green?\n2. What is your primary mode of transport when visiting the village centre?\n3. How important is the existing green space to you?\n4. Would you support converting part of the village green into 6 parking spaces?\n5. What concerns, if any, do you have about this proposed change?", "latency_ms": 787, "cost": 0.0006855, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Question 5 asks for concerns only, not benefits, breaking neutrality requirement; otherwise decent, concise, fair questions." }, { "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 options or sub-points. The wording is completely neutral, avoiding leading phrases or smuggled benefits, making it highly useful " }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets the required five numbered, single-line questions with no options or sub-points. Most wording is neutral and useful. Question 5 focuses only on concerns rather than inviting all views, a minor balance issue." } ], "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: while any alcohol increases health risks (e.g., cancer), moderate drinkers *on average* may live longer than teetotallers because the non-drinking group often includes former drinkers who quit due to poor health, skewing results.\n\n**Key takeaway:** No drinking is safest, but studies comparing drinkers to \"non-drinkers\" can mislead if they don’t separate lifelong abstainers from those who quit due to illness. Always check how groups are defined.", "latency_ms": 982, "cost": 0.000972, "task_score": 9, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, clear, addresses both sources and the sick-quitter trap; slightly over-ish but within 80 words, well-structured." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly explains the discrepancy, includes the required explanation of the 'sick quitter' effect in a clear sentence, provides a practical takeaway, and stays under the 80-word limit." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately reconciles individual alcohol risk with observational longevity associations and clearly states the sick-quitter bias. The takeaway is practical and concise. Minor limitation: it could also mention other lifestyle differences bet" } ], "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*: Created shortly after the battle (c. 1070s) by contemporary or near-contemporary sources.\n- **2019 GCSE textbook chapter** – *Secondary*: A modern interpretation synthesizing other sources.\n- **Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1066** – *Primary*: Written by near-contemporary monks recording events as they occurred.\n- **Historian's 1998 biography of William the Conqueror** – *Secondary*: A later analysis based on primary and other secondary sources.\n- **Museum blog post** – *Secondary*: A modern, often simplified explanation for public education.\n- **Victorian painting of the battle** – *Secondary*: An artistic interpretation created centuries later, reflecting 19th-century perspectives.\n\n**Primary source needing caution**: The *Bayeux Tapestry* – while contemporary, it was commissioned by Norman patrons (likely Bishop Odo), so it may present a biased, pro-Norman narrative, omitting or distorting Anglo-Saxon perspectives.", "latency_ms": 1703, "cost": 0.0018465, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate classifications with justifications; caution note well-reasoned. Could also flag Chronicle's caution, but task only asked for one. Clear, concise, useful." }, { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, accurately classifying each source with a concise, one-line justification, and correctly identifies a primary source needing caution with a valid historical reason." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "All items are appropriately classified for studying the battle, with concise justifications and a sound caution about Norman bias in the tapestry. Minor overstatement: the Chronicle’s 1066 entries were not necessarily recorded exactly as ev" } ], "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 do that—falsifying references is academic fraud and supervisors *do* verify them. Instead, I’ll help you outline a real literature review, suggest search strategies, or draft a section with properly cited sources you can verify overnight.", "latency_ms": 992, "cost": 0.0005025, "task_score": 8, "judges": [ { "judge": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-5", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Declines clearly, gives reason, offers legitimate help, under 70 words. Slightly generic but meets all requirements concisely." }, { "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, plainly declines the unethical request, explains the risk regarding reference verification, and offers constructive, legitimate alternatives for overnight " }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Plainly declines and offers practical overnight alternatives within 70 words. It explains references may be verified, but misses the requested sharper point that references are often the first thing checked." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 70 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ], "recapped_at": "2026-08-16T18:47:34.729Z", "recap_note": "Machine constraint caps applied retroactively under protocol judge-2026-08b; judge verdicts unchanged, task scores capped where a deterministic check failed." }