The case prompt and 58 supplied files are normalized into a content-addressed cache. OCR, extraction warnings, and source identity are recorded before any candidate runs.
Standalone report. Run details are embedded below. External downloads are intentionally omitted.
METHODOLOGY
One matter room, isolated candidates, criterion-level judging
The comparison separates the quality of the final legal work from the path the agent took to produce it.
Every candidate receives the same prompt, normalized sources, tool definitions, output contract, and limits. The evaluator rubric and reference answer remain outside the candidate workspace. Public research is disabled for this case.
Pinned Claude Sonnet 5 evaluates the complete DOCX against each of the 17 expert criteria. The headline score gives one point per criterion; the separate internal view weights high, medium, and low criteria 3/2/1.
Repeat design: models with three runs expose variation; models with one run are explicitly treated as exploratory. Judge calibration, deterministic output gates, and the independent case audit do not add or subtract rubric points.
RESULTS
Three runs per model
Mean, population standard deviation, and range expose run-to-run variability rather than presenting a lucky single result.
3-RUN RESULT
Claude Opus 5
76.5%
Mean unweighted score
Weighted mean73.8%
Variation±8.3 pts
Range64.7%–82.4%
Cited answers100.0%
Citation support100.0%
Candidate latency42.5 min
3-RUN RESULT
Claude Sonnet 5
54.9%
Mean unweighted score
Weighted mean53.2%
Variation±26.5 pts
Range17.6%–76.5%
Cited answers100.0%
Citation support100.0%
Candidate latency34.8 min
3-RUN RESULT
GPT-5.6 Luna
64.7%
Mean unweighted score
Weighted mean64.3%
Variation±4.8 pts
Range58.8%–70.6%
Cited answers77.8%
Citation support91.7%
Candidate latency2.9 min
3-RUN RESULT
GPT-5.6 Sol
21.6%
Mean unweighted score
Weighted mean19.0%
Variation±5.5 pts
Range17.6%–29.4%
Cited answers66.7%
Citation support66.7%
Candidate latency1.9 min
3-RUN RESULT
Grok 4.6
31.4%
Mean unweighted score
Weighted mean28.6%
Variation±12.1 pts
Range17.6%–47.1%
Cited answers60.0%
Citation support50.0%
Candidate latency2.5 min
FAILURE MODES
The misses cluster by rubric category
Each model is shown once, with its rubric-category results grouped underneath. This distinguishes a generally weak answer from a targeted failure—for example, strong core analysis paired with incomplete chronology, sourcing, procedure, or relief.
Repeated-run signal: across the 5 baseline models, the lowest category pass rates were Template & Procedural Compliance (26.7%), Document Selection & Sourcing (42.5%). The strongest were Governing Legal Framework (46.7%), Legal Analysis - Core Issues (64.4%). Every model contributes repeated runs to this diagnosis.
Lowest pass rate: Governing Legal Framework at 50.0%. Strongest: Legal Analysis - Core Issues at 94.4%.
Lowest pass rate: Governing Legal Framework at 33.3%. Strongest: Template & Procedural Compliance at 66.7%.
Lowest pass rate: Template & Procedural Compliance at 0.0%. Strongest: Governing Legal Framework at 83.3%.
Lowest pass rate: Template & Procedural Compliance at 0.0%. Strongest: Legal Analysis - Core Issues at 38.9%.
Lowest pass rate: Template & Procedural Compliance at 0.0%. Strongest: Governing Legal Framework at 50.0%.
Claude Opus 5
| Rubric category | Passed | Pass rate | Visual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing Legal Framework | 3/6 | 50.0% | |
| Template & Procedural Compliance | 2/3 | 66.7% | |
| Document Selection & Sourcing | 17/24 | 70.8% | |
| Legal Analysis - Core Issues | 17/18 | 94.4% |
Claude Sonnet 5
| Rubric category | Passed | Pass rate | Visual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing Legal Framework | 2/6 | 33.3% | |
| Document Selection & Sourcing | 12/24 | 50.0% | |
| Legal Analysis - Core Issues | 12/18 | 66.7% | |
| Template & Procedural Compliance | 2/3 | 66.7% |
GPT-5.6 Luna
| Rubric category | Passed | Pass rate | Visual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Template & Procedural Compliance | 0/3 | 0.0% | |
| Document Selection & Sourcing | 14/24 | 58.3% | |
| Legal Analysis - Core Issues | 14/18 | 77.8% | |
| Governing Legal Framework | 5/6 | 83.3% |
GPT-5.6 Sol
| Rubric category | Passed | Pass rate | Visual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Template & Procedural Compliance | 0/3 | 0.0% | |
| Document Selection & Sourcing | 3/24 | 12.5% | |
| Governing Legal Framework | 1/6 | 16.7% | |
| Legal Analysis - Core Issues | 7/18 | 38.9% |
Grok 4.6
| Rubric category | Passed | Pass rate | Visual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Template & Procedural Compliance | 0/3 | 0.0% | |
| Document Selection & Sourcing | 5/24 | 20.8% | |
| Legal Analysis - Core Issues | 8/18 | 44.4% | |
| Governing Legal Framework | 3/6 | 50.0% |
Category rates are descriptive. Categories with fewer criteria are naturally more sensitive to a single pass or fail; the complete criterion decisions remain available on every run page.
AGENTIC PERFORMANCE
Outcome and trajectory tell different stories
Quality is scored from the finished artifact. These operational metrics describe how the agent reached it: time to final answer, model turns, tool use, source coverage, and tokens.
| Model | Runs | Avg. latency | Avg. turns | Avg. tool calls | Avg. sources read | Avg. input tokens | Avg. output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5 | 3 | 850.8s | 107.7 | 122.7 | 51.7 | 11,448,472 | 51,474 |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 3 | 695.2s | 232.7 | 333.7 | 48.7 | 43,017,014 | 36,327 |
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 3 | 58.2s | 10.7 | 25.0 | 4.3 | 135,699 | 3,863 |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 3 | 37.1s | 7.0 | 22.7 | 3.7 | 33,314 | 2,079 |
| Grok 4.6 | 3 | 49.4s | 4.0 | 8.3 | 0.3 | 11,084 | 2,148 |
A turn is one recorded model request/response cycle. A tool call is a recorded invocation. Latency is candidate wall-clock time to the final artifact; judge latency is recorded separately on each run page.
Run pages summarize source reads, source searches, calculations, workspace-note writes, sources cited, and citation support. Public web-search calls remain zero because this case disables research.
GPT-5.6 Sol had the lowest mean candidate latency at 37.1 seconds. Faster completion is not itself a quality score.
WHAT WAS PROVEN
The benchmark works—and exposes where the agent still fails
The workflow produced comparable legal artifacts, criterion-level outcomes, and recorded operational metrics under one controlled harness.
The supplied matter was normalized once with 0 extraction warnings. Candidate workspaces were isolated, and the evaluator-only rubric stayed outside the candidate input tree.
Every artifact was checked mechanically and judged criterion by criterion rather than scored from a single holistic impression. Candidates received the same matter, prompt, tools, and output contract.
Claude Opus 5 led quality at 76.5%. The repeated-run diagnosis points first to Template & Procedural Compliance (26.7%), Document Selection & Sourcing (42.5%), while the strongest recurring areas were Governing Legal Framework (46.7%), Legal Analysis - Core Issues (64.4%). Every model has repeated runs.
Interpretation: read quality beside latency, turns, tool calls, and grounding; use the category breakdown to decide whether improvement should target retrieval, synthesis, procedural completeness, or substantive legal analysis.
DETAILED METHODOLOGY
Three separate layers
The benchmark separates doing the legal work, controlling the comparison, and grading the answer.
The selected model sees the lawyer's prompt but never the rubric. It inventories the file room, retrieves bounded source passages or workbook cells, writes working notes, and returns a DOCX based on the supplied template. Turns, tool use, source coverage, tokens, and latency are recorded.
Documents are normalized once. Every candidate receives the same prompt, source representations, tool definitions, template, and output contract. Isolated workspaces prevent one run from seeing another. Provider-specific execution settings are used only where required by the provider and do not change the legal task or rubric.
The default judge receives the complete extracted artifact and one expert rubric criterion at a time. It returns pass/fail, supporting language and location, citation decisions, explanation, and confidence. Code verifies affirmative evidence and treats an unresolved judge response as a judge error—not a candidate failure. The judge must pass four known-answer self-tests before candidate scoring begins.
SCORING METHODOLOGY
17 checks, shown below
The judge makes one independent decision for each expert-written criterion. Deterministic gates and the case-quality evaluation are reported separately and never silently change the rubric score.
17unweighted denominator11 / 3 / 3high / medium / low42weighted points available0unresolved judge errors
passed criteria ÷ 17. Every check counts once, regardless of importance. The score is withheld if any judgment remains unresolved.
High=3 points, medium=2, low=1. Here that is (11 × 3) + (3 × 2) + (3 × 1) = 42 available points. This is our documented internal weighting, not Legora's proprietary weighting.
Cited Answers = cited passed affirmative checks ÷ citation-eligible passed affirmative checks. Explicit absence checks are excluded because there is no supporting candidate passage to cite. Citation Support = supported cited checks ÷ cited passed checks. Neither changes the quality score.
Headline weighting: the score gives exactly one point to each of the 17 criteria. The high/medium/low label does not change that headline. The report also shows a separate internal weighted score where high=3, medium=2, and low=1, for 42 possible weighted points. Neither weighting is claimed to reproduce Legora's private production weighting.
| Model | Run | Passed checks | Unweighted | Weighted points | Internal weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5 | 1 | 14/17 | 82.4% | 33/42 | 78.6% |
| Claude Opus 5 | 2 | 11/17 | 64.7% | 27/42 | 64.3% |
| Claude Opus 5 | 3 | 14/17 | 82.4% | 33/42 | 78.6% |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 1 | 3/17 | 17.6% | 6/42 | 14.3% |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 2 | 12/17 | 70.6% | 29/42 | 69.0% |
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 3 | 13/17 | 76.5% | 32/42 | 76.2% |
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 1 | 10/17 | 58.8% | 24/42 | 57.1% |
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 2 | 12/17 | 70.6% | 30/42 | 71.4% |
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 3 | 11/17 | 64.7% | 27/42 | 64.3% |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 1 | 5/17 | 29.4% | 10/42 | 23.8% |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 2 | 3/17 | 17.6% | 6/42 | 14.3% |
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 3 | 3/17 | 17.6% | 8/42 | 19.0% |
| Grok 4.6 | 1 | 8/17 | 47.1% | 18/42 | 42.9% |
| Grok 4.6 | 2 | 3/17 | 17.6% | 6/42 | 14.3% |
| Grok 4.6 | 3 | 5/17 | 29.4% | 12/42 | 28.6% |
The DOCX is extracted into all non-empty lines with stable line:N locations. For each criterion, the judge receives the complete structured artifact, criterion text, importance, and expert evidence.
An affirmative passing decision must include an exact candidate quote and location. Code searches the extracted artifact for that quote. An unverifiable answer is retried once; a second failure becomes a judge error, not a candidate fail. Artifact-wide absence checks are allowed only for explicit negative criteria.
The judge prompt requires failure where a material contradiction defeats an otherwise present statement. Calibration includes a known contradictory fixture before the campaign is accepted.
Opening failures, missing files, placeholders, citations, latency, and searches are separately visible metrics. Only the 17 binary rubric decisions produce the quality scores.
DETERMINISTIC OUTPUT GATES
4 checks on every generated artifact
These are ordinary code checks performed after DOCX generation and again during judging. They carry zero rubric points.
| Check | Current result | Exact method | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artifact opens | 15/15 | Open the generated DOCX and extract its text. | Separate gate; 0 rubric points |
| Required file exists | 15/15 | Confirm every case.json required artifact exists. | Separate gate; 0 rubric points |
| No placeholders remain | 15/15 | Search extracted text for template markers such as [Insert…], 20XX, and {{…}}. | Separate gate; 0 rubric points |
| No template instructions remain | 15/15 | Search for drafting notes and delete-before-filing reminders. | Separate gate; 0 rubric points |
JUDGE CALIBRATION
Four known-answer judge self-tests
This is a preflight test of the default judge and its fixed instructions, not a test of any candidate model and not training or fine-tuning. The harness submits four deliberately small examples with outcomes known in advance. If any observed decision differs from the expected result, calibration is marked failed and the benchmark stops before candidate scoring. Passing catches obvious judging regressions; it does not prove that every real judgment is correct.
Current result: all 4/4 fixtures matched. They contribute zero points to candidate scores.
| Fixture | Expected | Observed | Judge explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| positive | pass | matched | The artifact states "Alpha" with a citation to Source A, matching the required point and evidence. |
| missing | fail | matched | The candidate artifact only contains the statement "Alpha." and does not state Beta anywhere. The required point is absent from the artifact. |
| contradictory | fail | matched | While line:1 states "Alpha.", line:2 directly contradicts it by stating "Alpha is not true." This material contradiction within the artifact means it does not unambiguously state Alpha. |
| unsupported | fail | matched | The artifact cites "Source B" but the only supporting evidence provided is Source A. Since the cited source does not match the evidence source, the citation is not supported by the given evidence. |
EVALUATION SETUP
Comparable inputs, independent scoring
The full technical prompts are retained internally for reproducibility and are available on request.
Every candidate model received the same case instructions, source materials, tools, template, and output requirements.
Candidate models did not receive the rubric, reference answer, expected evidence, or another model's work.
The same default judge evaluated every completed artifact independently, one rubric criterion at a time.
Repeated runs used isolated workspaces, and the report identifies one-run exploratory results separately from three-run results.
ALL RUBRIC CHECKS
The complete 17-criterion checklist
Expand any row to see the binary criterion and the expert-provided evidence expected to support it. “Primary support” and “Additional support” describe the rubric author's evidence hierarchy; they are not scores. Candidate agents never received this material.
R-001 Legal Analysis - Core IssuesHigh importance
Criterion
the section 10 must include the fact that the Framework Agreement is construed in accordance with the French law.
Source rubric label: choice of law. Category: Legal Analysis - Core Issues.
Expected evidence
Primary support — the "clients instruction" states "We would like the dispute to be resolved by arbitration in Paris and in accordance with French law. We would like to have only one arbitrator. The procedural rules must be those of the SCC. Could you amend the contract accordingly?"
R-002 Template & Procedural ComplianceMedium importance
Criterion
The caps on the first letter of the word must be put on word that are defined in the contract
Source rubric label: Caps. Category: Template & Procedural Compliance.
Expected evidence
Primary support — [PSEUDONYMISE] Contract with arbitration clause (article 2) definitions that set up caps for defined word.
R-003 Governing Legal FrameworkHigh importance
Criterion
The clause does not specify an appeal court or any other court as the arbitral body.
Source rubric label: Court. Category: Governing Legal Framework.
Expected evidence
Primary support — the "clients instruction" states "We would like the dispute to be resolved by arbitration in Paris and in accordance with French law. We would like to have only one arbitrator. The procedural rules must be those of the SCC. Could you amend the contract accordingly?"
R-004 Governing Legal FrameworkHigh importance
Criterion
The ICC Rules are replaced by the SCC Arbitration Institute’s Rules of Arbitration
Source rubric label: ICC SCC. Category: Governing Legal Framework.
Expected evidence
Primary support — the "clients instruction" states "We would like the dispute to be resolved by arbitration in Paris and in accordance with French law. We would like to have only one arbitrator. The procedural rules must be those of the SCC. Could you amend the contract accordingly?"
R-005 Document Selection & SourcingHigh importance
Criterion
the panel of three arbitrators is replaced by a sole arbitrator
Source rubric label: sole arbitrator. Category: Document Selection & Sourcing.
Expected evidence
Primary support — the "clients instruction" states "We would like the dispute to be resolved by arbitration in Paris and in accordance with French law. We would like to have only one arbitrator. The procedural rules must be those of the SCC. Could you amend the contract accordingly?"
R-006 Document Selection & SourcingHigh importance
Criterion
The entire appointment process has been abolished, along with the number of arbitrators.
Source rubric label: election process. Category: Document Selection & Sourcing.
Expected evidence
Primary support — the "clients instruction" states "We would like the dispute to be resolved by arbitration in Paris and in accordance with French law. We would like to have only one arbitrator. The procedural rules must be those of the SCC. Could you amend the contract accordingly?"
R-007 Document Selection & SourcingHigh importance
Criterion
Swiss law is replaced by French law as the law applicable to the merits of the case
Source rubric label: French law. Category: Document Selection & Sourcing.
Expected evidence
Primary support — the "clients instruction" states "We would like the dispute to be resolved by arbitration in Paris and in accordance with French law. We would like to have only one arbitrator. The procedural rules must be those of the SCC. Could you amend the contract accordingly?"
R-008 Document Selection & SourcingHigh importance
Criterion
The response provides the full text of the revised clause, not just the amendments.
Source rubric label: Full text. Category: Document Selection & Sourcing.
Expected evidence
Primary support — the "clients instruction" states "We would like the dispute to be resolved by arbitration in Paris and in accordance with French law. We would like to have only one arbitrator. The procedural rules must be those of the SCC. Could you amend the contract accordingly?"
R-009 Document Selection & SourcingHigh importance
Criterion
the place of arbitration is Paris
Source rubric label: Paris. Category: Document Selection & Sourcing.
Expected evidence
Primary support — the "clients instruction" states "We would like the dispute to be resolved by arbitration in Paris and in accordance with French law. We would like to have only one arbitrator. The procedural rules must be those of the SCC. Could you amend the contract accordingly?"
R-010 Document Selection & SourcingHigh importance
Criterion
The escalation clause takes as its starting point the request for arbitration.
Source rubric label: starting point. Category: Document Selection & Sourcing.
Expected evidence
Primary support — [PSEUDONYMISE] Contract with arbitration clause (article 10) states "If the contact persons fail to reach an agreement on the dispute within TEMP264, the dispute shall be referred to more senior individuals within the respective companies who shall try to resolve the dispute within a further TEMP264. If no resolution is found each Party is entitled to commence the arbitration proceedings described below."
R-011 Document Selection & SourcingHigh importance
Criterion
The answer addresses the binding nature of the escalation clause.
Source rubric label: mandatory escalation. Category: Document Selection & Sourcing.
Expected evidence
Primary support — [PSEUDONYMISE] Contract with arbitration clause (article 10) states "If the contact persons fail to reach an agreement on the dispute within TEMP264, the dispute shall be referred to more senior individuals within the respective companies who shall try to resolve the dispute within a further TEMP264. If no resolution is found each Party is entitled to commence the arbitration proceedings described below."
R-012 Document Selection & SourcingLow importance
Criterion
The ruling determines the fate of the provisions relating to the emergency arbitrator
Source rubric label: urgent arbitrator. Category: Document Selection & Sourcing.
Expected evidence
Primary support — We would like to appoint an emergency arbitrator in case of urgent matters.
addtionnal - SCC_Arbitration_Rules_2023_English states that : "Article 1 Emergency arbitrator
(1) A party may apply for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator until
the case has been referred to an Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to Article 22 of
the Arbitration Rules.
(2) The powers of the emergency arbitrator shall be those set out in Article
37 (1)-(3) of the Arbitration Rules. Such powers terminate on referral of
the case to an Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to Article 22 of the Arbitration
Rules, or when an emergency decision ceases to be binding according to
Article 9 (4) of this Appendix."
R-013 Legal Analysis - Core IssuesMedium importance
Criterion
The reply includes a confidentiality clause binding on the parties
Source rubric label: Confidentiality. Category: Legal Analysis - Core Issues.
Expected evidence
Primary support — SCC_Arbitration_Rules_2023_English states that : "Article 3 Confidentiality
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the SCC, the Arbitral Tribunal
and any administrative secretary of the Arbitral Tribunal shall maintain the
confidentiality of the arbitration and the award."
R-014 Legal Analysis - Core IssuesLow importance
Criterion
The answer excludes the conflict-of-laws rules in Article 10
Source rubric label: conflict of law. Category: Legal Analysis - Core Issues.
Expected evidence
Primary support — [PSEUDONYMISE] Contract with arbitration clause (article 10) states "This Framework Agreement and any matters relating hereto shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Swiss law." and the "Client instructions" states that the contract must apply the french law.
R-015 Legal Analysis - Core IssuesLow importance
Criterion
The response rules out an "amiable compositeur".
Source rubric label: amiable compositeur. Category: Legal Analysis - Core Issues.
Expected evidence
Primary support — SCC_Arbitration_Rules_2023_English states that : "(3) The Arbitral Tribunal shall decide the dispute ex aequo et bono or as
amiable compositeur only if the parties have expressly authorised it to do
so."
R-016 Legal Analysis - Core IssuesHigh importance
Criterion
no legal, case-law or regulatory reference that has been invented or attributed to a non-existent text
Source rubric label: sourcing. Category: Legal Analysis - Core Issues.
Expected evidence
Primary support — prompt states "Please check that no legal, case-law or regulatory reference that has been invented or attributed to a non-existent text and also that no reference to a specific article of the SCC regulations has been made without verification."
R-017 Legal Analysis - Core IssuesMedium importance
Criterion
no reference to a specific article of the SCC regulations has been made without verification
Source rubric label: SCC sourcing. Category: Legal Analysis - Core Issues.
Expected evidence
Primary support — prompt states "Please check that no legal, case-law or regulatory reference that has been invented or attributed to a non-existent text and also that no reference to a specific article of the SCC regulations has been made without verification."
PUBLIC CONTEXT
No valid conversion to an official BAR score
Within this case, anthropic:claude-opus-5 leads at 76.5%; the full model spread is 54.9 percentage points. Legora does not publish a raw score for this synthetic case that can be converted to this harness. The defensible comparison is therefore within this report, not against an official threshold.
INTERPRETATION
How to read this result
Unweighted pass rate is the headline: passed criteria divided by all 17 criteria. The separately labeled internal 3/2/1 score gives high-importance criteria more influence. It is not presented as Legora's proprietary weighting.
Cited Answers measures passed affirmative criteria whose supporting passage contains a citation; explicit absence criteria are excluded. Citation Support asks whether that citation agrees with the expert evidence attached to the rubric criterion.
The run page includes a conservative document-name or document-ID proxy: sources named in the artifact divided by sources read through tools. Shorthand citations and exploratory reads can make it undercount, so it is not equivalent to Legora's proprietary grounding metric.
Candidate and judge latency are separate. Run pages summarize model turns, tool calls, searches, source coverage, and token usage alongside the criterion-level decisions.
Every model has repeated runs. This case, common harness, internal weights, and judging implementation remain independent, and no official performance threshold is claimed.
82.4%Unweighted
78.6%Internal weighted
852.3sCandidate latency
15.7sJudge latency
100.0%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
14,146,349input tokens49,935output tokens13,969,376cache-read tokens175,461cache-write tokens500,961judge input tokens126model turns144tool calls0grounded searches63sources read25.4%grounding proxy
Tool mix: calculate: 5, list sources: 1, read source: 72, search sources: 30, write workspace: 32.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Pass | line:35 | Section 10.1 states the Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of France, satisfying the criterion that the Framework Agreement be construed under French law. |
| R-002 | Pass | line:53 | The draft defines terms in Section 11.1 (e.g., "Dispute", "Billing Dispute", "Technical Dispute", "Settlement Statement", "Disputed Amount", "Undisputed Amount", "Dispute Notice", "ICC Rules", "Emergency Arbitrator Provisions", "Expedited Procedure Provisions") and consistently capitalizes these defined terms throughout Sections 10 and 11 (e.g., "Dispute", "Party", "Agreement", "Order", "Annex"). This matches the requirement that capitalization of the first letter be reserved for defined terms. |
| R-003 | Pass | line:78 | The drafted Section 11 designates ICC arbitration with a sole arbitrator seated in Paris (Section 11.6), and does not name any court as the arbitral body; courts are only referenced for interim/conservatory relief in parallel to arbitration (Section 11.9), not as the dispute resolution forum itself. |
| R-004 | Fail | line:142 | The instruction required replacing ICC rules with SCC Arbitration Institute rules. The candidate document explicitly refuses to do so, stating the client instructions file was 'not present' in its matter file and drafts the clause using ICC Rules throughout, expressly noting 'No reference to the SCC ... appears anywhere in Sections 10 or 11'. This directly contradicts the required criterion. |
| R-005 | Pass | line:79 | The draft Section 11.6(b) replaces the inherited three-arbitrator panel with a sole arbitrator default (three only above EUR 5,000,000), satisfying the requirement. |
| R-006 | Fail | The rubric requires flagging that the appointment process and number of arbitrators were abolished/changed relative to instructions specifying SCC rules with one arbitrator. The candidate document instead retains an ICC-based sole/three arbitrator election with a EUR 5,000,000 threshold (Section 11.6(b)), and explicitly states it never received the client instructions file, so it never engaged with the actual client instruction (one arbitrator, SCC rules) at all. There is no acknowledgment that the appointment process from the client's instruction was abolished; rather it appears the document was drafted without knowledge of that instruction, producing a mismatch not framed as required by the criterion. | |
| R-007 | Pass | line:35 | The draft's Section 10.1 designates French law as governing law, consistent with the instruction to replace prior law with French law. |
| R-008 | Pass | line:52 | The artifact provides complete clause text for both Section 10 (Governing Law) and Section 11 (Dispute Resolution), including all subsections, definitions, and mechanisms, rather than just amendments or redlines to an existing clause. |
| R-009 | Pass | line:81 | The draft Section 11.6(d) specifies the seat as Paris, France, satisfying the criterion. |
| R-010 | Fail | The artifact explicitly states the source contract with the arbitration clause (article 10) is NOT present in the matter file (see Part A.2, table 1 row 2). The escalation clause in Section 11.5 is instead built from the 2008 Seacom framework agreement's Article 15 and the parties' own dispute history, not from the specific contract referenced in the criterion's evidence. The escalation window (11.4/11.5) starts from a Dispute Notice, not explicitly framed as starting from a 'request for arbitration' matching the cited source's TEMP264 escalation structure. No text matches or references the specific evidence quote. | |
| R-011 | Pass | line:74 | The candidate directly addresses whether escalation tiers are binding/conditions precedent. Section 11.5(b) explicitly states the escalation procedures are procedural undertakings only and not a condition precedent to arbitration jurisdiction, and Part C.2 discusses the problem of tiers being contestable conditions precedent in the inherited clause. This substantively addresses the binding nature issue, even though the source document (the actual contract with article 10) was not in the file - the candidate acknowledges this and reasons from analogous evidence. |
| R-012 | Pass | line:90 | The artifact drafts Section 11.7 establishing an emergency arbitrator mechanism under the ICC Emergency Arbitrator Provisions, expressly making it applicable and non-excludable by other tiers, resolving the fate of emergency arbitrator provisions. |
| R-013 | Pass | line:120 | The draft includes a confidentiality clause at Section 11.12 binding the parties regarding the arbitration proceedings, submissions, evidence, orders and awards. |
| R-014 | Pass | line:35 | Section 10.1 excludes conflict-of-laws rules: "excluding its rules on conflict of laws to the extent that they would refer to any other law." |
| R-015 | Pass | line:46 | The draft explicitly rules out amiable compositeur/ex aequo et bono decision-making in Section 10.5. |
| R-016 | Pass | line:151 | The artifact contains an explicit verification statement confirming no invented or misattributed legal/regulatory references, with supporting detail in Part H.4 and the tables listing verified sources and deliberately unused/unverified references (e.g., SCC, French procedural code, case law all explicitly flagged as not cited). |
| R-017 | Pass | line:142 | The document explicitly confirms no SCC article is cited anywhere, with a full explanation of the verification attempt and absence of SCC material in the file. |
64.7%Unweighted
64.3%Internal weighted
903.3sCandidate latency
14.7sJudge latency
100.0%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
11,898,227input tokens51,814output tokens11,724,618cache-read tokens172,253cache-write tokens648,861judge input tokens113model turns127tool calls0grounded searches54sources read51.9%grounding proxy
Tool mix: calculate: 3, list sources: 1, read source: 58, search sources: 31, write workspace: 29.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Pass | line:36 | Section 10.1 states the Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of France. |
| R-002 | Fail | The rubric requires that capitalized first letters be reserved for terms defined in the contract, per an arbitration-clause definitions article referenced in the evidence. The candidate artifact is a drafting note/memo, not the underlying contract, and it does not contain a definitions article establishing defined terms with corresponding capitalization conventions. While the drafted Section 11 text does capitalize certain terms (e.g., "Dispute", "Dispute Notice", "Business Day"), there is no visible definitions section in the artifact confirming these are formally defined, nor any general statement tying capitalization to defined terms. No passage in the artifact addresses or confirms this capitalization/definition rule, so there is no valid evidence to cite for a pass. | |
| R-003 | Pass | line:128 | The drafted clause specifies ICC arbitration as the final dispute resolution mechanism, not a court. Section 11.7(a) states disputes shall be finally settled by ICC arbitration, and court involvement is expressly limited to interim/conservatory relief only (11.6(c)), not as the arbitral body itself. |
| R-004 | Fail | line:205 | The artifact explicitly rejects SCC and uses ICC Rules throughout, contradicting the required SCC replacement. It states 'No SCC rule, article or provision is cited anywhere in this deliverable' and uses ICC Arbitration Rules as the governing procedural framework. |
| R-005 | Pass | line:134 | The clause replaces the three-arbitrator default with a sole arbitrator (escalating only above €5,000,000). |
| R-006 | Fail | line:134 | The criterion requires that the appointment process and number of arbitrators be entirely abolished/removed, but the artifact does the opposite: Section 11.7(d)-(e) retains a detailed arbitrator appointment process (sole arbitrator vs three arbitrators depending on a €5,000,000 threshold, with specific nomination and confirmation procedures). This contradicts the client's instruction of 'only one arbitrator' and does not abolish the election/appointment process as required. |
| R-007 | Pass | line:36 | Section 10.1 explicitly states French law governs the Agreement, replacing the prior Swiss/other law framework, matching client instruction for French law. |
| R-008 | Pass | line:34 | The artifact provides complete full replacement text for both Section 10 (Governing Law, 10.1-10.5) and Section 11 (Dispute Resolution, 11.1-11.14) with all operative provisions spelled out in full, not just amendments/redlines to existing text. |
| R-009 | Pass | line:130 | The drafted clause 11.7(b) explicitly sets Paris, France as the seat of arbitration, matching the instruction. |
| R-010 | Fail | The candidate artifact draws its escalation clause design from the supplied matter file's Articles 15-16 (S1) and the ICC procedural history, not from the specific contract clause with the TEMP264 senior-escalation language quoted in the evidence. No text in the artifact references that particular clause or uses it as the starting point for the escalation mechanism. | |
| R-011 | Fail | The rubric evidence references a specific contract clause (article 10) requiring escalation to senior individuals before arbitration can commence, with a mandatory time-boxed structure. However, the candidate artifact is drafting an entirely different agreement (Roaming IOT Discount Framework Agreement) based on a different matter file, and explicitly states 11.4(f)/11.2(e) that escalation is NOT a condition precedent to arbitration - i.e., it makes escalation optional/non-binding, which contradicts rather than addresses the binding/mandatory nature described in the rubric evidence. There is no discussion tying to the specific 'mandatory escalation' clause referenced in the evidence. | |
| R-012 | Pass | line:106 | The artifact expressly determines the fate of the emergency arbitrator provisions: Section 11.5(a) makes them expressly applicable, closing the exclusions from the ICC rules. |
| R-013 | Pass | line:162 | The artifact contains a full confidentiality clause (11.11) binding the parties on confidentiality of proceedings and disclosed data, with carve-outs, satisfying the requirement for a confidentiality clause binding on the parties, though based on ICC rather than SCC. |
| R-014 | Pass | line:36 | Section 10.1 governing law clause explicitly excludes conflict-of-laws rules: "to the exclusion of its rules of private international law and of any doctrine of renvoi." |
| R-015 | Fail | The artifact never mentions "amiable compositeur" or ex aequo et bono, nor does it state that the tribunal decides according to law rather than equity. No provision addresses this point at all, so it fails to rule out amiable compositeur. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:341 | The artifact explicitly addresses this via Section 7.3's table findings, confirming no invented case law, and only file-sourced statutory/regulatory references are used with express caveats where verification wasn't possible. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:205 | The artifact explicitly addresses the SCC verification instruction in Section 7.2, stating no SCC rule/article is cited anywhere, confirming a search returned no results, and noting any SCC reference must be treated as unverified. |
82.4%Unweighted
78.6%Internal weighted
796.8sCandidate latency
20.6sJudge latency
100.0%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
8,300,840input tokens52,673output tokens8,135,221cache-read tokens164,611cache-write tokens663,090judge input tokens84model turns97tool calls0grounded searches38sources read63.2%grounding proxy
Tool mix: calculate: 4, list sources: 1, read source: 55, search sources: 18, write workspace: 15.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Pass | line:42 | Section 10.1 explicitly states the Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of France. |
| R-002 | Pass | line:40 | The redraft consistently capitalizes only terms that are defined either in the host agreement (e.g., "Agreement", "Party"/"Parties", "Order Form", "Special Conditions", "Services", "Charges", "Business Day", "Affiliate", "Laws") or newly defined within the clause itself (e.g., "Dispute", "Dispute Notice", "Emergency Measures", "Technical Dispute", "Rules"). Paragraph 40 explicitly states defined terms follow the host agreement and lists them, and paragraph 55-56 defines "Dispute" with initial cap, paragraph 92-93 defines "Emergency Measures", paragraph 76 defines "Technical Dispute", paragraph 84 defines "Rules" - all consistent with the rule that caps track defined terms. |
| R-003 | Pass | line:84 | The clause designates arbitration under ICC Rules with seat in Paris, and courts are only referenced for interim/conservatory measures (11.10) and regulatory carve-outs (10.4), not as the arbitral body itself. The settlement agreement's court-jurisdiction clause is explicitly identified as a decoy not to be used (Part 4.4). No appeal court or other court is specified as the arbitral body. |
| R-004 | Fail | line:151 | The criterion requires the ICC Rules be replaced by the SCC Arbitration Institute's Rules of Arbitration, per the client's instruction. The candidate explicitly does the opposite: it deliberately retains and uses the ICC Rules throughout the clause (Sections 11.7-11.10) and Part 10.2 states 'No SCC reference of any kind appears in the clause,' asserting the SCC rules are not in the matter file and were not used. This directly contradicts the required substitution. |
| R-005 | Pass | line:85 | Clause 11.7(b) establishes a sole arbitrator by default, replacing the inherited three-arbitrator requirement, with three only above a EUR 3,000,000 threshold. |
| R-006 | Fail | line:85 | The criterion requires the clause to abolish the entire appointment process along with the number of arbitrators (per client instruction for a single arbitrator under SCC rules). The candidate artifact instead retains a full appointment mechanism (clause 11.7(b)) that sets one arbitrator as default but reverts to three arbitrators above EUR 3,000,000, complete with a nomination/confirmation process for both scenarios. It does not abolish the appointment process; it preserves and elaborates it. There is also no SCC citation - the draft explicitly refuses to use SCC rules, contradicting the client's instruction. This is a material contradiction of the required point. |
| R-007 | Pass | line:42 | Clause 10.1 governs the Agreement by French law, and the artifact notes the original Article 16 already specified French law (not Swiss). The clause maintains French law throughout, consistent with the criterion, though the artifact never mentions any prior 'Swiss law' - the existing instrument used French law already at Art.16, so no replacement was needed; the redraft continues French law. |
| R-008 | Pass | line:55 | The artifact provides complete replacement clause text for Section 10 and Section 11 (paragraphs 10.1-10.7 and 11.1-11.14), not just amendments, as explicitly stated in Part 6. |
| R-009 | Pass | line:87 | Clause 11.7(d) specifies the seat of arbitration as Paris, France. |
| R-010 | Fail | The rubric requires that the escalation clause take as its starting point the actual Request for Arbitration document (with its TEMP264-style contact/senior escalation language) as the source instrument to be redrafted. The candidate artifact instead states it drafted against a different instrument - a co-location/cage-space/power/interconnection framework agreement with Articles 15/16 - explicitly noting there is 'no roaming agreement... anywhere in the record' and drafting against 'the instrument that exists' rather than the Request for Arbitration referenced in the evidence. There is no quote in the artifact matching the escalation structure described in the evidence (senior individuals escalation tied to arbitration commencement as in the pseudonymised contract). The candidate's own Part 1 flags this exact mismatch as an unresolved issue, indicating it did not take the correct starting point. | |
| R-011 | Pass | line:203 | The artifact addresses the binding/mandatory nature of the escalation clause, discussing the mandatory mediation condition precedent in Art. 15.4 ('shall be submitted') and the new clause's treatment of tiers as 'obligations of conduct only' whose non-compliance does not affect jurisdiction (11.4(d)), directly engaging with the escalation clause's binding character. |
| R-012 | Pass | line:92 | The artifact resolves emergency arbitrator provisions clearly in clause 11.9, expressly adopting and applying the ICC Emergency Arbitrator Provisions, and carving them out of pre-arbitral tiers. |
| R-013 | Pass | line:112 | The artifact includes clause 11.12 which imposes binding confidentiality obligations on the parties covering proceedings, submissions, evidence, orders, determinations and awards. |
| R-014 | Pass | line:42 | The clause text at 10.1 excludes conflict-of-laws rules by stating French law governs "excluding any rules of private international law or conflict of laws that would lead to the application of the law of any other jurisdiction." |
| R-015 | Pass | line:51 | The clause explicitly excludes amiable compositeur/ex aequo et bono powers. |
| R-016 | Pass | line:326 | The artifact contains an extensive Part 10 verification/citation audit tracing every ICC Rules article and contract clause to a specific file and page, plus explicit negative assurances (Part 10.4/table 9) listing categories of references deliberately NOT cited (SCC, later ICC editions, case law, EU/sector regulation, French statute as own proposition, ICC soft law) with reasons, demonstrating no invented or unverified legal reference. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:151 | The artifact explicitly addresses this in Part 10.2, stating no SCC reference of any kind appears anywhere and explaining why (SCC Rules not in matter file, research tool disabled), and confirms zero SCC citations were used. |
17.6%Unweighted
14.3%Internal weighted
920.9sCandidate latency
12.1sJudge latency
100.0%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
76,229,050input tokens43,733output tokens75,903,695cache-read tokens321,372cache-write tokens71,303judge input tokens332model turns405tool calls0grounded searches48sources read2.1%grounding proxy
Tool mix: calculate: 29, list sources: 4, read source: 298, search sources: 71, write workspace: 1.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Fail | The artifact does not draft Section 10 at all; it is a memorandum explaining inability to complete the task due to missing source documents. It never states French law as governing law for Section 10. | |
| R-002 | Fail | The artifact is a memorandum explaining inability to draft the clauses due to missing source documents; it contains no drafted contract text at all, so there is no opportunity to assess capitalization conventions for defined terms. The criterion about capitalizing defined terms per the contract's definitions is not addressed or satisfied. | |
| R-003 | Fail | The artifact contains no drafted clause at all; it is a memo explaining inability to complete the task due to missing source documents. Since no clause exists, it cannot satisfy the criterion that 'the clause does not specify an appeal court or any other court as arbitral body' - there is no clause to assess. The rubric evidence (client instructions about SCC arbitration in Paris) is not part of this candidate artifact, which explicitly states no such instructions file was found. | |
| R-004 | Fail | The artifact does not replace ICC rules with SCC rules; instead it refuses to draft any clause, stating that no clients instructions file, underlying contract, or SCC Rules text exists in the record. It explicitly declines to perform the substitution requested by the criterion, so the required substantive point is absent. | |
| R-005 | Fail | The artifact never drafts a sole arbitrator clause; instead it explains the task could not be completed because the 'clients instructions' file was missing. No mention of replacing a three-member panel with a sole arbitrator appears anywhere in the candidate artifact. | |
| R-006 | Fail | The candidate artifact is a memorandum stating the task cannot be completed due to missing source documents (including the 'clients instructions' file). It does not contain any drafted arbitration clause, and therefore does not address the appointment process or number of arbitrators at all, let alone abolish them. The criterion cannot be satisfied by this artifact. | |
| R-007 | Fail | The artifact does not draft any clause or state that French law replaces Swiss law; it explains the task could not be completed due to missing source documents, including the "clients instructions" file referenced in the rubric evidence. No mention of French law or governing law substitution appears anywhere in the artifact. | |
| R-008 | Fail | The artifact contains no drafted clause at all, let alone the full text of a revised clause; it is a memorandum explaining why drafting cannot proceed. | |
| R-009 | Fail | The artifact never mentions Paris as the place of arbitration; it explicitly states no clients instructions file was found and no clauses were drafted, so this required point is absent. | |
| R-010 | Fail | The artifact contains no drafted escalation clause at all; it is a memorandum explaining that the task could not be completed due to missing source documents. There is no content addressing an escalation clause starting point, let alone one based on a request for arbitration. | |
| R-011 | Fail | The candidate artifact is a memorandum stating the task could not be completed due to missing source documents; it never discusses the escalation clause's binding nature or the tiered negotiation-to-arbitration mechanism described in the rubric evidence. | |
| R-012 | Pass | line:18 | The memo explicitly addresses the emergency arbitrator request and determines it cannot be drafted because the SCC Rules text (including its emergency arbitrator appendix) is not in the record, so any such provision would be unverifiable. |
| R-013 | Fail | The artifact is a memorandum declining to draft the requested clauses due to missing source documents; it contains no confidentiality clause at all, only a mention that confidentiality would need to be addressed if instructions were provided. | |
| R-014 | Fail | The artifact is a memorandum declining to draft the clauses due to missing source documents; it never discusses Article 10's conflict-of-laws rules, Swiss law, or the exclusion of such rules as required by the criterion. | |
| R-015 | Fail | The artifact does not mention amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono at all; it focuses entirely on missing documents (clients instructions, underlying contract, SCC Rules text) and does not address this specific substantive point. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:18 | The memo explicitly refrains from citing any invented legal/case-law/regulatory reference, and explains it will not cite SCC articles without verification since the SCC Rules text is absent from the record. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:18 | The memo confirms no SCC article was cited, explaining that since no SCC Rules text exists in the record, any citation to a specific SCC article would be unverifiable and thus was not made, satisfying the verification requirement. |
70.6%Unweighted
69.0%Internal weighted
440.6sCandidate latency
17.0sJudge latency
100.0%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
11,221,149input tokens26,603output tokens11,051,813cache-read tokens167,801cache-write tokens175,020judge input tokens128model turns190tool calls0grounded searches48sources read16.7%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 2, read source: 111, search sources: 73, write workspace: 2.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Pass | line:8 | Section 10.1 explicitly states the Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of France. |
| R-002 | Pass | line:13 | The artifact capitalizes defined terms consistently with their definitions (e.g., "Dispute" defined in 11.1 and capitalized throughout; "Party Representative" defined in 11.2; "Operational Review," "Senior Management Review," "Mediation Rules," "ICC Rules," "Agreement" all defined and consistently capitalized when used). No evidence of capitalization applied to undefined terms. |
| R-003 | Pass | line:19 | The redraft designates ICC arbitration (sole arbitrator, Paris seat) as the dispute resolution mechanism, and no appeal court or other court is named as the arbitral body; courts are only referenced for interim/conservatory relief, not as the arbitral body itself. |
| R-004 | Fail | The instruction required replacing ICC Rules with SCC Arbitration Institute Rules. The candidate artifact explicitly retains ICC Rules throughout Section 11 (arbitration, mediation, emergency arbitrator, expedited procedure) and expressly states it did NOT use SCC rules ('no SCC article is cited anywhere in this redraft'), directly contradicting the client instruction. | |
| R-005 | Pass | line:19 | The redraft explicitly replaces the three-arbitrator default with a sole arbitrator default in Section 11.7. |
| R-006 | Fail | line:19 | The criterion requires that the entire appointment process and arbitrator-number provisions be abolished. Instead, the artifact retains a detailed appointment/arbitrator process: Section 11.7 sets a sole-arbitrator default 'appointed in accordance with the ICC Rules' and expressly allows opting up to three arbitrators. This contradicts the requirement that the appointment process and arbitrator count provisions be entirely removed. |
| R-007 | Pass | line:8 | The redraft's governing law clause explicitly sets French law as applicable, replacing any prior Swiss law reference. |
| R-008 | Pass | line:13 | The artifact provides full redrafted text for Section 10 (10.1-10.3) and Section 11 (11.1-11.11), not just amendment markers, presenting complete operative clause language throughout. |
| R-009 | Pass | line:19 | The redraft explicitly sets Paris as the seat of arbitration. |
| R-010 | Fail | The candidate's escalation clause (Sections 11.2-11.5) is modeled on the Precedent Contract's Level 1/Level 2/Mediation structure, not on the specific 'contact persons -> senior individuals -> arbitration' escalation clause referenced in the rubric evidence. There is no mention of this particular contract or its escalation starting point language anywhere in the artifact. | |
| R-011 | Fail | The artifact's escalation clauses (11.2, 11.3) require the parties to "use good-faith efforts" to resolve within time limits but do not state that escalation is mandatory/binding as a precondition to arbitration - in fact 11.4 explicitly disapplies escalation requirements for urgent relief/arbitration in certain circumstances, and there's no explicit statement that a party is only 'entitled to commence arbitration' after failing the escalation steps, unlike the source clause which makes this binding condition explicit. The candidate does not address the binding/mandatory nature of escalation as a precondition to arbitration. | |
| R-012 | Pass | line:18 | The redraft affirmatively resolves the emergency arbitrator provision by incorporating the ICC Emergency Arbitrator mechanism (Article 29/Appendix V) into Section 11.6, addressing the client's instruction to appoint an emergency arbitrator for urgent matters. |
| R-013 | Pass | line:21 | The redraft includes Section 11.9 which is an express confidentiality clause binding the parties to keep the arbitration confidential, with limited carve-outs. |
| R-014 | Pass | line:8 | Section 10.1 states the Agreement is governed by French law, "excluding its conflict-of-laws rules to the extent such rules would result in the application of the laws of another jurisdiction," which excludes conflict-of-laws rules as required. |
| R-015 | Fail | The artifact never addresses "amiable compositeur" or ex aequo et bono decision-making. It focuses on governing law (French law), ICC arbitration mechanics, emergency arbitrator, and expedited procedure, but nowhere states that the tribunal shall not decide as amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono. No such text exists in the artifact. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:5 | The artifact expressly verifies that all cited ICC Rules articles were checked against the source PDF, confirms no SCC rules exist in the matter file and none are cited, confirms no case law is cited, and confirms no telecom-specific regulation is cited because none could be verified. This directly satisfies the criterion against invented or unverified legal/regulatory references. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:5 | The artifact explicitly confirms no SCC article is cited anywhere, consistent with the verification instruction. |
76.5%Unweighted
76.2%Internal weighted
723.9sCandidate latency
13.7sJudge latency
100.0%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
41,600,842input tokens38,644output tokens41,310,850cache-read tokens287,137cache-write tokens147,276judge input tokens238model turns406tool calls0grounded searches50sources read16.0%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 3, read source: 132, search sources: 265, write workspace: 2.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Pass | line:17 | Section 10.1 explicitly states the Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of France. |
| R-002 | Pass | line:23 | The artifact uses capitalized defined terms consistently (e.g., "Dispute", "Dispute Notice", "Senior Representative", "Negotiation Period", "Urgent Roaming Matter", "ICC Rules"), each introduced with a bolded quoted definition establishing capitalization, consistent with the defined-term convention required by the criterion. |
| R-003 | Pass | line:32 | The clause designates arbitration administered by the ICC as the dispute resolution mechanism, with courts only permitted for interim/conservatory relief (Section 11.8), not as the arbitral body itself. No appeal court or other court is designated as the arbitral body. |
| R-004 | Fail | line:25 | The artifact explicitly declines to use SCC rules, keeping ICC Rules as the administering institution instead. Paragraph 9 and Section 11.4 confirm ICC (not SCC) Rules apply, directly contradicting the criterion that SCC rules must replace ICC rules. |
| R-005 | Pass | line:28 | The draft replaces the default three-arbitrator panel with a sole arbitrator (opt-up to three only above USD 10M), satisfying the client's instruction for one arbitrator. |
| R-006 | Fail | line:29 | The criterion requires that the appointment process and number of arbitrators be abolished entirely (client wanted only one arbitrator, per SCC rules). Instead, the artifact's Section 11.6 retains an appointment process (sole arbitrator by default, opt-up to three arbitrators above US$10,000,000 threshold with a nomination procedure), which contradicts abolishing the process and fixed number. Also SCC rules were not used at all - ICC was substituted instead. This is a material contradiction of the required point. |
| R-007 | Pass | line:17 | Section 10.1 replaces prior governing law with French law: "This Agreement... shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of France..." |
| R-008 | Pass | line:22 | The artifact includes the full redrafted text of Section 10 (Governing Law) and Section 11 (Dispute Resolution), with all subsections spelled out in full, not merely a list of changes. |
| R-009 | Pass | line:33 | The draft specifies Paris as the seat of arbitration in Section 11.9. |
| R-010 | Fail | line:23 | The criterion requires the escalation clause to be based on the specific two-tier escalation structure from the actual client contract (contact persons, then senior individuals, each with a defined period, before arbitration can be commenced). The candidate artifact instead bases its escalation clause (Section 11.2) on a different source document - the Seacom Facilities and Services Framework Agreement's Article 15, which the drafter admits had a 'Level 1 Review' then 'Level 2 Review' structure. The candidate explicitly collapses this into a single 15-Business-Day Negotiation Period, deviating from and not taking as its starting point the two-tier escalation structure shown in the evidence (contact persons -> senior individuals -> arbitration). The candidate never references the actual contract's escalation language at all, relying instead on a substituted precedent document. |
| R-011 | Pass | line:23 | The draft addresses the binding/mandatory nature of the escalation clause, stating negotiation must occur before arbitration can be commenced, with a defined mandatory time period. |
| R-012 | Pass | line:26 | The redraft includes Section 11.5 which expressly confirms that Emergency Arbitrator Provisions apply and are not excluded, determining the fate of the emergency arbitrator provisions as requested. |
| R-013 | Pass | line:34 | The draft includes Section 11.10 Confidentiality of the arbitration, which binds the Parties, tribunal and emergency arbitrator to keep the arbitration confidential, subject to limited exceptions. |
| R-014 | Pass | line:17 | Section 10.1 explicitly excludes conflict-of-laws rules while applying French law. |
| R-015 | Fail | The candidate artifact never addresses amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono decision-making at all; Section 10 (Governing Law) and Section 11 (Dispute Resolution) contain no clause ruling out or otherwise mentioning amiable compositeur authority. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:40 | The artifact expressly confirms no invented case law or regulatory references, verifies all ICC Rules citations against a source document in the matter file, flags the one unverifiable figure (current expedited threshold) rather than asserting it, and refrains from citing any SCC article since no SCC rules text exists in the file. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:40 | The artifact explicitly confirms no SCC article was cited without verification, since no SCC rules text was found in the matter file and the candidate refrained from citing any SCC article. |
58.8%Unweighted
57.1%Internal weighted
46.0sCandidate latency
13.8sJudge latency
57.1%Cited answers
75.0%Citation support
26,151input tokens3,349output tokens14,033cache-read tokens10,896cache-write tokens87,326judge input tokens5model turns13tool calls0grounded searches2sources read50.0%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 1, read source: 4, search sources: 4.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Fail | line:3 | Section 10.1 states the Agreement is governed by Swedish law, not French law as required by the client instructions. This directly contradicts the criterion. |
| R-002 | Fail | The artifact capitalizes terms like "Dispute", "Party"/"Parties", "SCC" as if they were defined terms, but no article 2 or definitions section is present in this artifact to actually define these terms. The candidate itself acknowledges in its source note that the source document ('[PSEUDONYMISE] Contract with arbitration clause') containing the article 2 definitions was not available, so it cannot be verified that capitalized words correspond to actual defined terms. This is a material gap against the criterion requiring caps only on contractually defined words. | |
| R-003 | Pass | line:8 | The clause consistently designates SCC arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism (Section 11.3, 11.5) and does not name any appeal court or other court as the arbitral body; courts are only referenced for interim relief enforcement, not as the arbitral body itself. |
| R-004 | Pass | line:8 | The clause replaces ICC procedural rules with SCC Arbitration Rules administered by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, as required by client instructions. |
| R-005 | Pass | line:9 | The clause explicitly states arbitration shall be conducted by one arbitrator, matching the client instruction requiring only one arbitrator. |
| R-006 | Fail | line:9 | The clause does not abolish the appointment process or the number of arbitrators. Paragraph 11.4 explicitly retains one arbitrator and describes an appointment process (agreement between parties, failing which appointment per SCC Rules). This directly contradicts the criterion that the appointment process and arbitrator number were abolished. |
| R-007 | Fail | The clause selects Swedish law as governing law (10.1) and Stockholm as seat, not French law/Paris as required by client instructions. No French law provision exists. | |
| R-008 | Pass | line:3 | The artifact provides the complete text of Sections 10 and 11, including all subsections (10.1-10.2, 11.1-11.14), not merely a list of amendments. This constitutes full clause text. |
| R-009 | Fail | line:10 | The artifact sets the seat of arbitration as Stockholm, Sweden (Section 11.5), not Paris, directly contradicting the required criterion. The document itself acknowledges it did not have access to the client instructions specifying Paris. |
| R-010 | Fail | The escalation clause (11.1-11.2) starts with operational representatives' notice, not the request for arbitration as the starting point per the source contract. No text in the artifact matches the required framing tied to the request for arbitration as the trigger point. | |
| R-011 | Pass | line:7 | The artifact's Section 11.1-11.2 establishes a mandatory escalation process (operational reps then senior reps) as a precondition to arbitration, addressing the binding nature of escalation, with an exception carved out for urgent relief. |
| R-012 | Pass | line:15 | The clause includes provisions on emergency arbitrator relief (11.8-11.10), addressing its availability, powers, and termination upon tribunal constitution or as SCC rules provide, consistent with the cited SCC Appendix II Article 1. |
| R-013 | Pass | line:16 | The artifact contains a confidentiality clause (11.11) binding the Parties to keep confidential the existence and content of the arbitration, pleadings, evidence, submissions, orders and awards, with limited exceptions. |
| R-014 | Pass | line:3 | The artifact's Section 10.1 explicitly excludes conflict-of-laws rules: "shall be governed by the substantive law of Sweden, excluding its conflict-of-laws rules and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods." This satisfies the criterion, though it applies Swedish law rather than the Swiss/French law referenced in the evidence - a discrepancy the artifact itself flags as a drafting assumption since it lacks source documents. No external legal citation is invoked here, so citation validity is not applicable. |
| R-015 | Fail | The clause never mentions amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono, nor does it state that the arbitrator must decide according to the applicable law rather than as amiable compositeur. This point is entirely absent from the artifact. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:22 | The artifact explicitly avoids citing any specific SCC article/rule number, and transparently discloses its sourcing basis (ICC Rules PDF) and that it does not verify SCC wording, and that no case-law or regulatory instrument is relied upon. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:22 | The artifact explicitly states no specific SCC article or rule number is cited, and clarifies that the ICC source does not verify any SCC provision, avoiding unverified article references. |
70.6%Unweighted
71.4%Internal weighted
78.5sCandidate latency
12.4sJudge latency
88.9%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
244,565input tokens4,448output tokens215,510cache-read tokens26,021cache-write tokens79,599judge input tokens18model turns33tool calls0grounded searches5sources read40.0%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 1, read source: 11, search sources: 16.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Pass | line:3 | Section 10.1 explicitly states the Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of France. |
| R-002 | Fail | The artifact capitalizes terms like "Party"/"Parties" and "Agreement" throughout, but nowhere does it actually define these or any other terms (no definitions section is present, e.g. Article 2 style definitions). Without a definitions clause establishing which capitalized terms are defined terms, it cannot be verified that capitalization is applied only to properly defined words per the rubric requirement. | |
| R-003 | Pass | line:13 | The clause designates ICC arbitration as the dispute resolution body, with courts only available for urgent interim/conservatory measures (§11.8), not as the arbitral body itself. No appeal court or other court is specified as the arbitral body. |
| R-004 | Fail | line:23 | The client instructed that the procedural rules must be those of the SCC, but the artifact instead applies ICC Rules of Arbitration throughout (Section 11.4-11.13) and explicitly states "No SCC rule or SCC article is used." This directly contradicts the requirement. |
| R-005 | Pass | line:10 | The artifact states in 11.5 that the tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator, unless ICC determines three are needed given circumstances - implementing sole arbitrator as default, matching client instruction. |
| R-006 | Fail | line:10 | The criterion requires that the entire appointment process and number of arbitrators be abolished, but the artifact retains and specifies a tribunal composition clause (11.5 Tribunal) stating one arbitrator unless ICC determines three are appropriate, and does not abolish the appointment process - it relies on ICC Rules for appointment. This contradicts the stated criterion. |
| R-007 | Pass | line:3 | The clause replaces prior governing law with French law, satisfying the criterion. |
| R-008 | Pass | line:4 | The artifact provides full replacement text for Section 10 (Governing Law) and Section 11 (Dispute Resolution and Arbitration), including complete clauses 11.1 through 11.14, not merely redlined amendments. |
| R-009 | Pass | line:11 | The artifact specifies Paris as the seat of arbitration in Section 11.6. |
| R-010 | Fail | The escalation process in paragraph 7 begins with written notice of dispute, not with a request for arbitration; the criterion requires the escalation clause's starting point to be the request for arbitration, which is not reflected in the artifact. | |
| R-011 | Pass | line:8 | The artifact addresses the binding/mandatory nature of the escalation process in paragraph 8, clarifying it is a condition precedent to proceedings on the merits except where impracticable or urgent relief is needed, consistent with the source's structure of escalation before arbitration. |
| R-012 | Pass | line:23 | The artifact resolves the emergency-arbitrator issue by incorporating the ICC Rules' emergency-arbitrator mechanism (11.7) rather than the SCC provision cited in the evidence, and explicitly notes in the sourcing section that the SCC rule is not used and the mechanism is incorporated by reference to ICC Rules. |
| R-013 | Pass | line:16 | The artifact includes a confidentiality clause (11.11) binding the Parties, tribunal, emergency arbitrator and experts to confidentiality of the arbitration, submissions, evidence, and awards, subject to limited exceptions. |
| R-014 | Pass | line:3 | Section 10.1 explicitly excludes conflict-of-laws rules while applying French substantive law. |
| R-015 | Fail | The candidate artifact never mentions "amiable compositeur" or "ex aequo et bono" anywhere in its clauses, nor does it expressly rule out such authority for the tribunal. No text addresses this point at all. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:23 | The artifact cites only verified sources: the ICC Rules (with page/article references) and the prior SEACOM precedent document, and explicitly disclaims any SCC rule or unverified case-law/statute/treaty citation. No fabricated or unverifiable legal reference appears. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:23 | The artifact explicitly states no SCC rule or article is used, confirming absence of unverified SCC references. |
64.7%Unweighted
64.3%Internal weighted
50.1sCandidate latency
12.8sJudge latency
87.5%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
136,381input tokens3,792output tokens89,277cache-read tokens34,084cache-write tokens70,963judge input tokens9model turns29tool calls0grounded searches6sources read16.7%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 1, read source: 9, search sources: 16.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Pass | line:2 | Section 10.1 explicitly states the Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with French law. |
| R-002 | Fail | The artifact contains no definitions section (Article 2) establishing defined terms, and capitalized terms like 'Party'/'Parties' appear throughout without any corresponding definitions being shown in the provided text. There is no evidence in the artifact linking capitalization to defined terms, so the criterion cannot be verified as satisfied. | |
| R-003 | Pass | line:8 | The clause specifies SCC arbitration with a tribunal (or emergency arbitrator), not any court, as the dispute resolution body; courts are referenced only for urgent interim relief, not as the arbitral body itself. |
| R-004 | Pass | line:8 | The artifact replaces ICC with SCC rules explicitly in 11.4. |
| R-005 | Fail | line:9 | The client instructed that there be only one arbitrator, but the artifact's Section 11.5 still defaults to a three-arbitrator tribunal, only permitting a sole arbitrator by later mutual agreement after a dispute arises, and failing that agreement reverting to three arbitrators. This contradicts the instruction rather than implementing a sole arbitrator as the default panel structure. |
| R-006 | Fail | line:9 | Client instructed a sole arbitrator, but the artifact retains a three-arbitrator tribunal as default (11.5), only allowing sole arbitrator by post-dispute agreement. The appointment/election process was not abolished; it was retained with modification. This contradicts the requirement. |
| R-007 | Pass | line:2 | Section 10.1 designates French law as governing law, replacing prior Swiss law per client instruction. |
| R-008 | Fail | line:9 | The artifact provides the full revised clause text (Sections 10 and 11), but clause 11.5 states the tribunal "shall consist of three (3) arbitrators" with a sole arbitrator only by later agreement - contradicting the client's instruction for a single arbitrator. Aside from this substantive conflict, the full text requirement itself is satisfied since complete clause language is given rather than a mere amendment summary; however since the criterion requires full text of the *revised* clause reflecting the client's instructions, and the sole-arbitrator instruction is not properly implemented, this is a material contradiction undermining the pass. |
| R-009 | Pass | line:11 | The artifact specifies Paris, France as the seat of arbitration. |
| R-010 | Fail | line:7 | The criterion requires the escalation clause to take the request for arbitration as its starting point (i.e., escalation precedes and gates arbitration commencement, as in the source: only after senior executives fail to resolve does arbitration commence). The candidate's Section 11.2-11.3 instead structures escalation as merely a non-binding, easily bypassed step - explicitly stating escalation is not a condition of commencing arbitration except in limited scope, and arbitration may commence even before expiry of the escalation period for continuing/urgent disputes. This contradicts the source's structure where escalation is a genuine precondition/starting point before arbitration is triggered. |
| R-011 | Pass | line:7 | The artifact addresses escalation's binding/conditional nature in 11.3, explaining that escalation is a condition to arbitration only to a limited extent and detailing exceptions (emergency relief, urgent breach, etc.), consistent with the rubric's concern about mandatory escalation before arbitration. |
| R-012 | Pass | line:10 | The artifact addresses emergency arbitrator provisions in detail (11.5, 11.6), confirming the parties consent to appointment of an emergency arbitrator under SCC Rules, its powers, non-waiver of court interim relief, and non-membership on the tribunal unless separately appointed. |
| R-013 | Pass | line:13 | The artifact includes a confidentiality clause (11.9) binding both parties to keep the arbitration and related materials confidential, subject to limited exceptions. |
| R-014 | Pass | line:2 | Paragraph 2 excludes conflict-of-laws rules explicitly. |
| R-015 | Fail | The artifact does not mention amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono at all; there is no clause ruling this out. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:18 | The artifact avoids fabricated references, citing only the verified Seacom precedent for governing law/seat/language and explicitly declining to cite unverified SCC article numbers, instead referring generically to "the SCC Rules in force when arbitration is commenced." |
| R-017 | Pass | line:18 | The artifact explicitly avoids citing specific SCC article numbers, referring only generally to "the SCC Rules in force when arbitration is commenced," and the source-control confirmation confirms this deliberate choice to avoid unverified article citations. |
29.4%Unweighted
23.8%Internal weighted
35.3sCandidate latency
12.0sJudge latency
100.0%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
40,664input tokens1,816output tokens24,455cache-read tokens14,872cache-write tokens39,003judge input tokens6model turns16tool calls0grounded searches2sources read0.0%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 1, read source: 5, search sources: 4.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft Section 10/11 replacement clauses, stating the required source documents (contract and client instructions) are missing and refusing to invent terms such as governing law. It does not state that the Framework Agreement is construed in accordance with French law within a Section 10 provision; it only notes that a different, unrelated sample agreement uses French law in its Article 16, which is not the same as fulfilling the criterion. | |
| R-002 | Fail | The candidate artifact does not draft any clause language using defined terms with capitalization; it is entirely a source-integrity refusal memo explaining that the required source contract ("[PSEUDONYMISE] Contract with arbitration clause") and client instructions were not supplied. There is no capitalization of defined terms present, nor any discussion of the criterion's substance, so the artifact cannot be assessed as satisfying this requirement. | |
| R-003 | Pass | artifact-wide absence check | The artifact does not draft a clause specifying an appeal court or other court as the arbitral body; it declines to draft due to missing source documents, so no court is named as arbitral body, satisfying the negative criterion. |
| R-004 | Fail | The artifact does not amend ICC rules to SCC rules; it explicitly declines to draft replacement clauses due to missing source documents, stating no SCC provisions were used. | |
| R-005 | Fail | The artifact does not draft or state a sole-arbitrator provision; it explains that the required source documents are missing and declines to draft the clause, explicitly listing 'the number and method of appointment of arbitrators' as an unresolved assumption. No sole arbitrator replacement is present. | |
| R-006 | Fail | The candidate artifact does not abolish or specify the appointment process/number of arbitrators; instead it declines to draft the clause entirely, citing missing source documents (the client instructions and the contract with arbitration clause). It explicitly lists 'the number and method of appointment of arbitrators' as an unresolved assumption it refuses to make, rather than abolishing that process. This does not satisfy the criterion. | |
| R-007 | Fail | The candidate artifact does not draft any replacement clause applying French law to the merits; instead it declines to draft due to missing source documents. No text states Swiss law is replaced by French law. | |
| R-008 | Fail | The artifact contains no revised clause text at all; it declines to draft due to missing documents. No full clause is provided. | |
| R-009 | Fail | The artifact explicitly refuses to draft the requested clause, stating the client instructions document is missing and no assumptions about the arbitral seat will be made. It does not state Paris as the place of arbitration for the new clause (it only mentions Paris in context of a different, unrelated 2008 framework agreement's existing arbitration clause). | |
| R-010 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft the escalation clause because the source contract with the arbitration clause is missing from the supplied matter. It never states or reproduces the escalation-to-arbitration content described in the rubric evidence; instead it lists 'any mandatory operational or executive escalation tailored to roaming disputes' as an assumption that cannot be made. | |
| R-011 | Fail | The artifact never discusses the binding nature or mandatory escalation steps of the arbitration clause; it only states that the source contract with the arbitration clause is missing and lists mandatory escalation as an unresolved item that would need to be assumed. It does not address the substance of the criterion. | |
| R-012 | Pass | line:6 | The artifact addresses emergency arbitrator provisions by explaining that SCC rules on emergency arbitration could not be verified and thus were not drafted, leaving the fate as unresolved/not drafted pending missing documents. |
| R-013 | Fail | The candidate artifact contains no confidentiality clause at all; it explicitly declines to draft replacement clauses due to missing source documents and does not address confidentiality obligations binding on the parties. | |
| R-014 | Pass | line:2 | The artifact explicitly states the source document with the arbitration clause and client instructions are missing, and thus does not draft or reference Article 10's Swiss law conflict-of-laws provision at all, correctly excluding it since it wasn't part of the supplied matter. |
| R-015 | Fail | The artifact never mentions "amiable compositeur" or ex aequo et bono at all; it declines to draft the clauses entirely due to missing documents, so it does not rule out this authority. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:6 | The artifact explicitly states no SCC rules/model clause were included and no SCC article number or unverified legal, case-law, or regulatory reference was used, and the one citation given (Seacom framework agreement) is to an actual supplied document, not invented. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:6 | The artifact explicitly states no SCC rules or SCC model clause were included, that public-source research was unavailable so current SCC emergency-arbitrator provisions could not be verified, and thus no SCC article number was used. |
17.6%Unweighted
14.3%Internal weighted
36.7sCandidate latency
11.6sJudge latency
0.0%Cited answers
0.0%Citation support
36,619input tokens2,045output tokens25,998cache-read tokens8,126cache-write tokens35,841judge input tokens8model turns26tool calls0grounded searches5sources read0.0%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 1, read source: 7, search sources: 13.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Fail | The candidate artifact does not draft Section 10 at all; instead it declines to draft it, citing missing source documents. There is no statement anywhere in the artifact that the Framework Agreement is construed in accordance with French law. | |
| R-002 | Fail | The artifact does not draft any contractual clause with defined terms; it is solely a source-integrity refusal memo explaining that the controlling contract and instructions were missing. It contains no capitalized defined terms tied to Article 2 definitions, nor any discussion of capitalization conventions for defined terms, so this criterion cannot be satisfied. | |
| R-003 | Fail | The artifact contains no drafted arbitration clause at all; it explains that the source documents were missing and declines to draft Sections 10 and 11. Since no clause was produced, there is no way to assess whether it specifies an appeal court or other court as the arbitral body, so the criterion cannot be satisfied. | |
| R-004 | Fail | The artifact does not replace ICC Rules with SCC Rules; instead it explicitly declines to draft the replacement, stating the required source documents (contract and client instructions) are missing and that no SCC clause can be safely produced without them. No actual substitution of governing rules occurs. | |
| R-005 | Fail | The artifact declines to draft any substantive amendment, stating the client instructions document is missing and no reliable replacement of Sections 10/11 can be produced. It never states that the panel of three arbitrators is replaced by a sole arbitrator; it explicitly refrains from making such determinations. | |
| R-006 | Fail | The criterion requires that the appointment process and number of arbitrators be abolished/addressed, but the candidate artifact does not contain any drafted arbitrator appointment provision or number of arbitrators - instead it states that the client instructions document is missing entirely and refuses to draft Sections 10 and 11. The evidence cited (client instructions specifying one arbitrator, SCC rules, Paris seat) is not reflected in the candidate artifact, which explicitly says this document was not supplied and no such terms were determined. | |
| R-007 | Fail | The candidate artifact explicitly declines to draft the requested clause, stating that the source client instructions document is missing and cannot be used to determine governing law, and does not insert any French law provision replacing Swiss law. | |
| R-008 | Fail | The artifact does not provide any revised clause text at all; it declines to draft Sections 10 and 11 due to missing source documents, so the requirement of providing full text of the revised clause is not met. | |
| R-009 | Fail | The artifact explicitly states that the client instructions document was not found in the source inventory, and thus never states Paris as the place of arbitration. It does not include the required point; instead it flags missing documents. | |
| R-010 | Fail | The artifact explicitly states it could not produce the escalation clause due to missing source documents, and never drafts an escalation clause starting from the request for arbitration. No text satisfies this criterion. | |
| R-011 | Fail | The artifact never addresses the binding nature of the escalation clause; it only explains that source documents are missing/mismatched and refuses to draft the clause. No mention of mandatory escalation terms or their binding effect is present. | |
| R-012 | Pass | line:13 | The artifact addresses the emergency arbitrator provisions by stating they cannot be drafted now due to missing source documents, but confirms that once supplied, an 'expressly agreed SCC emergency-arbitrator mechanism' will be included, thus determining its fate (deferred pending materials). |
| R-013 | Fail | The artifact is a source-integrity refusal memo; it does not draft or include any confidentiality clause binding on the parties. No such text appears anywhere in the candidate artifact. | |
| R-014 | Fail | The artifact does not address Article 10's conflict-of-laws provision at all; it instead states the required source documents were missing and refuses to draft any substantive content, including exclusion of conflict-of-laws rules. There is no mention of excluding Article 10's choice-of-law clause. | |
| R-015 | Fail | The candidate artifact never mentions "amiable compositeur" or ex aequo et bono at all; it only explains missing documents and refuses to draft the clause. There is no ruling out of amiable compositeur. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:12 | The artifact explicitly states no SCC rule article is cited because SCC rules were unavailable, and confirms no legal, case-law, or regulatory proposition has been inserted or attributed to an unverified text, satisfying the no-fabrication criterion. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:12 | The artifact explicitly states no SCC rule article is cited due to unavailability of official/supplied SCC rules, satisfying the criterion that no unverified SCC article reference was made. |
17.6%Unweighted
19.0%Internal weighted
39.4sCandidate latency
11.1sJudge latency
100.0%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
22,659input tokens2,375output tokens12,465cache-read tokens6,068cache-write tokens46,483judge input tokens7model turns26tool calls0grounded searches4sources read100.0%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 1, read source: 6, search sources: 15.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Fail | The artifact is a source-sufficiency report explicitly declining to draft Section 10/11 due to missing source documents. It does not include a drafted Section 10 stating French law governs the Framework Agreement; instead it states the governing substantive law cannot be established. | |
| R-002 | Fail | The artifact explicitly states the contract with the arbitration clause (which would contain the definitions article establishing capitalized defined terms) was not in the source inventory, and thus the parties' defined terms and drafting conventions could not be established. There is no content in the artifact addressing or applying capitalization rules for defined terms; the report is a sufficiency/refusal memo, not a draft applying such conventions. | |
| R-003 | Fail | The artifact is a source-sufficiency report explaining that the request cannot be drafted due to missing source documents (the contract and client instructions). It does not contain any arbitration clause at all, so it cannot be assessed for whether it specifies a court as the arbitral body. The rubric evidence cited (client instructions text) does not appear in this artifact. | |
| R-004 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft the requested SCC replacement, stating the client instructions file was not available and that no SCC rule provision could be verified or cited. It does not contain the required substantive replacement of ICC Rules with SCC Rules; instead it only cites ICC 2017 rules as the available document. This fails the criterion. | |
| R-005 | Fail | The artifact is a source-sufficiency report explaining that the required contract and client-instructions files were not available, so it never actually drafts or states that the panel of three arbitrators is replaced by a sole arbitrator. No sentence addresses the sole-arbitrator requirement; it only lists 'number and method of appointment of arbitrators' as an unresolved open point. | |
| R-006 | Pass | line:15 | The artifact explicitly states that the "clients instructions" file is not in the source inventory, and lists "the number and method of appointment of arbitrators" as a transaction-critical point that cannot be established without that missing file. This confirms the appointment process and arbitrator number were not fabricated/abolished by the drafter, consistent with the criterion. |
| R-007 | Fail | The artifact is a source-sufficiency report explaining that the requested contract and client instructions were not found in the source inventory. It explicitly states the client instructions document does not exist in the sources and does not draft or state that French law replaces Swiss law as governing law. No such substantive amendment is present. | |
| R-008 | Fail | The artifact is a Source-Sufficiency Report explaining that the requested clause cannot be drafted; it explicitly declines to provide the revised clause and contains no full text of Sections 10 and 11 at all, let alone the full revised text. | |
| R-009 | Fail | The artifact never states that the place of arbitration is Paris; it explicitly states the client instructions document was not in the source inventory and that the seat of arbitration could not be established. | |
| R-010 | Fail | The artifact is a Source-Sufficiency Report explaining that the required contract with the escalation/arbitration clause was not found in the source inventory. It does not draft or state any escalation clause taking arbitration request as a starting point; it explicitly declines to draft Sections 10/11 due to missing source material. | |
| R-011 | Fail | The artifact does not address the binding nature of the escalation clause; it only notes generally that "required negotiation or escalation procedures and their time limits" cannot be established due to missing source documents. It never references or discusses the actual escalation clause content or its binding/mandatory nature as required by the criterion. | |
| R-012 | Fail | The artifact does not determine the fate of emergency-arbitrator provisions; it only lists 'the intended allocation between emergency-arbitrator relief, tribunal interim relief and court-ordered protective measures' as an open, unresolved point that cannot be established due to missing source documents. No ruling or determination is made. | |
| R-013 | Fail | The artifact does not include a confidentiality clause; it merely lists confidentiality as an unresolved item that "cannot be established" without missing source documents (paragraph 19). There is no drafted confidentiality provision binding the parties, nor citation to the SCC Rules Article 3 confidentiality provision cited in the evidence. | |
| R-014 | Fail | The artifact does not discuss Article 10 or conflict-of-laws rules at all; it explains that the source document (Facilities and Services Framework Agreement) is a different contract with dispute resolution/governing law in Articles 15-16, not Article 10. There is no mention of excluding conflict-of-laws rules in Article 10 as required by the criterion, nor any citation addressing this specific point. | |
| R-015 | Fail | The artifact never mentions 'amiable compositeur' or ex aequo et bono at all; it does not address this point. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:20 | The artifact explicitly avoids fabricating SCC rule citations, stating that no SCC rule or article number is cited and no unverified statutory, regulatory or case-law proposition has been included, while citing only verifiable documents (ICC Rules 2017, settlement agreement, framework agreement). |
| R-017 | Pass | line:20 | The artifact explicitly states that no SCC rule or article number is cited due to inability to verify current SCC rules, satisfying the requirement that no unverified SCC article reference be made. |
47.1%Unweighted
42.9%Internal weighted
72.9sCandidate latency
11.9sJudge latency
80.0%Cited answers
50.0%Citation support
11,152input tokens3,258output tokens6,528cache-read tokens0cache-write tokens114,415judge input tokens4model turns8tool calls0grounded searches1sources read0.0%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 1, read source: 1, search sources: 4.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Fail | line:5 | The artifact states governing law is Swedish substantive law (clause 10.1), not French law as required by the client instructions. This directly contradicts the criterion. |
| R-002 | Fail | The artifact explicitly notes it could not verify the source contract's definitions article (the "[PSEUDONYMISE] Contract with arbitration clause" was not among available sources). It uses capitalized terms like "Party," "Parties," "Agreement," and "Dispute" as if defined, but there is no definitions section in the artifact establishing these as defined terms, and the drafter admits reliance on an unverified external document for this convention. This means the capitalization convention cannot be confirmed to align with actual defined terms in the contract, and the candidate itself flags this gap rather than resolving it. | |
| R-003 | Pass | line:26 | The clause designates SCC arbitration (clause 11.5.1) with seat in Stockholm, not any court as the arbitral body. No appeal court or other court is designated as the dispute resolution body; courts are only mentioned for interim measures/enforcement, consistent with arbitration remaining the primary forum. |
| R-004 | Pass | line:26 | The artifact replaces ICC-style arbitration with SCC administration, stating disputes "shall be finally settled by arbitration administered by the SCC in accordance with the SCC Rules," matching the client instruction to use SCC procedural rules. |
| R-005 | Fail | The draft specifies a three-arbitrator tribunal (clause 11.5.4), not a sole arbitrator as instructed by the client. This contradicts the criterion. | |
| R-006 | Fail | line:29 | The client instruction required a single arbitrator, but the artifact specifies a three-arbitrator tribunal with a detailed nomination/appointment process (clause 11.5.4), contradicting the instruction rather than abolishing the appointment process or reducing arbitrators to one. |
| R-007 | Fail | The candidate artifact explicitly designates Swedish substantive law (clause 10.1: 'governed by and construed in accordance with the substantive laws of Sweden') and Stockholm as the seat, contradicting the requirement that French law govern the merits. No mention of French law appears anywhere in the document. | |
| R-008 | Pass | line:5 | The artifact provides the complete text of clauses 10 and 11 (Governing Law and Dispute Resolution) in full, including all subsections, rather than only listing amendments, satisfying the full-text requirement. |
| R-009 | Fail | line:27 | The artifact sets the seat of arbitration as Stockholm, Sweden (clause 11.5.2), not Paris, directly contradicting the client instruction requiring Paris as the place of arbitration. |
| R-010 | Fail | The rubric requires the escalation clause to use the request for arbitration as its starting point, mirroring the source's tiered escalation (contact persons -> senior individuals -> arbitration). The candidate's clause 11.4 mentions 'Request for Arbitration' only as a timing reference for the SCC Rules version, not as the trigger/starting point of an escalation ladder. The actual escalation structure (11.2 negotiation -> 11.3 expert determination -> 11.5 arbitration) does not track the source's senior-management escalation step, and the candidate notes explicitly that the source document was not among the listed sources for this matter and was not consulted. Thus the required point is not substantively present. | |
| R-011 | Fail | The evidence describes a mandatory two-tier escalation (contact persons then senior individuals) before arbitration can commence, sourced from a specific contract's article 10. The candidate artifact does not use this source at all - it explicitly states in its notes that the referenced 'Contract with arbitration clause' was not among the listed sources it used. The candidate's own negotiation clause (11.2) only provides a single-tier negotiation step among representatives/managers with no senior-escalation tier, and does not address the binding/mandatory nature described in the rubric evidence tied to that specific source. Thus the required point from the cited source is absent. | |
| R-012 | Pass | line:41 | The draft includes clause 11.7 establishing an emergency arbitrator mechanism, its powers, urgency triggers, and binding effect, addressing the emergency arbitrator provisions requested. |
| R-013 | Pass | line:54 | The artifact includes clause 11.9 which explicitly binds the parties to confidentiality regarding the dispute, proceedings, award, and materials. |
| R-014 | Pass | line:5 | The clause 10.1 excludes conflict-of-laws rules, stating Swedish substantive law applies "excluding Swedish conflict-of-laws rules." |
| R-015 | Fail | The artifact never mentions "amiable compositeur" or ex aequo et bono, nor does it state that the tribunal shall decide strictly according to law rather than as amiable compositeur. This criterion is not addressed anywhere in the clause. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:63 | The artifact explicitly avoids citing any unverified article numbers of the SCC Rules, GSMA PRDs, or case law, and states this limitation directly in its notes section. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:63 | The draft explicitly avoids citing specific SCC article numbers, stating it does not cite any article of the SCC Arbitration Rules or appendix number, and incorporates the SCC Rules and emergency-arbitrator provisions by reference to the rules "in force" rather than by unverified article numbers. |
17.6%Unweighted
14.3%Internal weighted
33.3sCandidate latency
20.1sJudge latency
0.0%Cited answers
0.0%Citation support
11,793input tokens1,484output tokens3,712cache-read tokens0cache-write tokens65,234judge input tokens4model turns9tool calls0grounded searches0sources read0.0%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 1, search sources: 8.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Fail | The artifact explicitly refuses to draft Section 10, stating the governing law choice is missing and cannot be stated without invention. It does not include French law as the governing law, contradicting the criterion. | |
| R-002 | Fail | The artifact does not draft the contract clauses at all, and does not address capitalization conventions for defined terms. There is no mention of defined-term capitalization anywhere in the text, so the criterion is not satisfied. | |
| R-003 | Fail | The artifact contains no drafted arbitration clause at all; it explicitly declines to draft sections 10-11. There is no text specifying or excluding an appeal court as arbitral body, and the rubric evidence (client instructions about arbitration in Paris under SCC rules) is not found anywhere in this artifact - it appears to be from a different source. No citation supporting this criterion exists in the candidate artifact. | |
| R-004 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft the SCC replacement clause, stating the client instructions file with the SCC requirement is missing from the matter and cannot be used, and that no SCC rules are cited or drafted. Thus the required substantive point (ICC rules replaced by SCC rules) is not present in the artifact. | |
| R-005 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft sections 10-11 and does not mention sole arbitrator replacing a panel of three; it treats client instructions as missing/unavailable rather than incorporating this requirement. | |
| R-006 | Fail | The artifact never drafts or discusses the appointment process or number of arbitrators; it explicitly states these are missing/not drafted, and the cited client instruction (one arbitrator, SCC rules, Paris seat) is not found anywhere in the candidate artifact, which claims no client instructions file exists. There's no content addressing abolition of appointment process or arbitrator number. | |
| R-007 | Fail | The artifact explicitly refuses to draft Section 10 (governing law) and states the client instructions file is missing from the matter, so it never states that French law replaces Swiss law as the governing law. No mention of Swiss law or French law being substituted is present anywhere in the artifact. | |
| R-008 | Fail | The candidate artifact explicitly declines to draft the clauses, stating sections 10 and 11 are 'Not drafted' due to missing source materials. No full text of a revised clause is provided anywhere in the artifact. | |
| R-009 | Fail | The artifact explicitly states that the client instructions file specifying Paris as seat is not among the matter sources and refuses to draft the clause, so it never states Paris as the place of arbitration. | |
| R-010 | Fail | The artifact explicitly refuses to draft sections 10-11 because it deems the required source contract ('[PSEUDONYMISE] Contract with arbitration clause') missing from the matter, and never uses the escalation clause content from the request for arbitration as a starting point. No such clause appears anywhere in the candidate text. | |
| R-011 | Fail | The artifact never addresses the binding/mandatory nature of an escalation clause; it explicitly states the required contract file was not available and no dispute resolution drafting was done, with no mention of escalation steps or their binding effect. | |
| R-012 | Pass | line:17 | The artifact explicitly addresses the emergency arbitrator request, noting it is acknowledged but cannot be drafted into a clause without missing sources, and lists it among items not stated absent invention. |
| R-013 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft any operative clauses for sections 10-11, stating placeholder clauses are omitted and no confidentiality clause is provided. Confidentiality of IOT data is only listed as a missing item to be addressed, not an actual binding clause. | |
| R-014 | Fail | The artifact does not draft or exclude conflict-of-laws rules in Article 10; instead it states the source contract and client instructions are missing entirely and no governing law or conflict-of-law treatment is provided. It does not address the specific requirement of excluding conflict-of-laws rules, and the evidence cited (Swiss law clause, French law instruction) is not referenced in the candidate artifact at all. | |
| R-015 | Fail | The artifact never mentions "amiable compositeur" or ex aequo et bono at all; it does not rule this out anywhere in the text. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:13 | The artifact explicitly states no legal, case-law, or regulatory citation is given and no SCC rule article is cited, consistent throughout the document with no invented references. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:26 | The artifact explicitly confirms no SCC article was cited without verification. |
29.4%Unweighted
28.6%Internal weighted
42.0sCandidate latency
11.7sJudge latency
100.0%Cited answers
100.0%Citation support
10,308input tokens1,703output tokens7,552cache-read tokens0cache-write tokens70,946judge input tokens4model turns8tool calls0grounded searches0sources read0.0%grounding proxy
Tool mix: list sources: 1, search sources: 7.
Download generated DOCX (not included)
JUDGMENT
17 criterion decisions
Each result is tied to the location and reason recorded by the judge.
| ID | Result | Location | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft Section 10, stating governing law is 'Not drafted — governing law not in matter,' and never states French law as the governing law of the Framework Agreement. It treats the clients' instructions as absent from the matter, contradicting the rubric evidence that instructions specifying French law exist. No citation of French law governing the agreement is present. | |
| R-002 | Fail | The artifact is a drafting refusal/status memo explaining that Sections 10 and 11 cannot be drafted due to missing source materials. It does not contain any actual contract drafting with defined terms or capitalization conventions applied to them. The only capitalized terms mentioned (Operator, TAP, IOT, Discount, Territory) appear in paragraph 32 merely as a list of definitions that need to be added to the matter, not as an instance of the artifact itself applying capitalization rules consistently to defined terms in operative text. There is no evidence the candidate artifact follows or violates the capitalization-of-defined-terms convention since no substantive drafted clauses exist to check. | |
| R-003 | Pass | line:44 | The artifact contains no operative clause at all, and thus does not specify any court as the arbitral body. It explicitly states no Sections 10/11 were drafted, so there is no fabricated appeal court or other court designation. |
| R-004 | Fail | The artifact does not draft any replacement clause switching from ICC to SCC rules. It explicitly declines to draft Sections 10/11 and states it lacks the client instructions file that would specify SCC rules, and notes 'No SCC article number is stated below.' There is no actual implementation of the ICC-to-SCC substitution as required by the criterion. | |
| R-005 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft Section 11 or any arbitration provisions, stating no client instructions or contract were available and that number of arbitrators is unconfirmed. There is no mention of a sole arbitrator replacing a panel of three; the criterion is not addressed. | |
| R-006 | Pass | line:34 | The artifact explicitly states that the number of arbitrators and the appointment/election process details are not drafted and not available, consistent with the criterion that these were abolished/omitted. Table 2 row 3 lists 'seat, language...' as not drafted, and paragraph 34 requests confirmation of 'number of arbitrators', showing the appointment process/arbitrator count was not carried forward from any prior draft. |
| R-007 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft operative Sections 10/11, states no governing law is drafted, and claims the 'clients instructions' file is not present in the matter, contradicting the rubric evidence that such instructions exist specifying French law. No French law provision is included. | |
| R-008 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft any revised clause text, stating the deliverable status shows Section 10 and Section 11 as 'Not drafted' due to missing instructions and contract. No full text of a revised clause is provided anywhere in the response. | |
| R-009 | Fail | The artifact explicitly states that client instructions (which would specify Paris as seat) are not present in the matter, and no seat is specified anywhere in the document. It refuses to draft the clause and lists seat as an open item to be confirmed, contradicting the requirement that Paris be stated as the place of arbitration. | |
| R-010 | Fail | The artifact explicitly refuses to draft Sections 10/11 and states no escalation clause was produced; it contains no escalation clause referencing a request for arbitration as starting point. | |
| R-011 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft Sections 10-11 and states the underlying contract with the escalation clause (article 10) is not in the matter. It never addresses the binding nature of the escalation clause itself; it only notes the contract is missing. | |
| R-012 | Pass | line:45 | The artifact explicitly addresses the emergency arbitrator provision's fate: it is noted as a client wish but not implemented, pending verified rules text and instructions. |
| R-013 | Fail | The artifact explicitly declines to draft Section 11 (which would contain confidentiality provisions) and states no operative clauses are issued; it does not include any confidentiality clause binding the parties. | |
| R-014 | Fail | The artifact does not draft or address Article 10's governing law provision at all; it explicitly states the contract and instructions are not in the matter, so it cannot exclude conflict-of-laws rules (i.e., specify law without renvoi/conflict rules) as required. No relevant text addresses this point. | |
| R-015 | Fail | The artifact never mentions "amiable compositeur" or ex aequo et bono decision-making, and does not rule it out anywhere in the text. | |
| R-016 | Pass | line:28 | The artifact explicitly refrains from inventing legal, case-law, or regulatory citations and states no SCC article numbers are stated, consistent with the criterion. |
| R-017 | Pass | line:28 | The artifact explicitly states no SCC article numbers are cited and none are relied upon without verification. |