Review date: September 5, 2026. The original 23/50 result (46%) is unchanged. This review separates answer defects from evidence-policy and grading issues. It does not publish an adjusted pass rate.
This assistant-assisted qualitative review uses saved responses, all six rubric dimensions, deterministic checks and frozen case requirements. It is not independent human adjudication. It covers all 27 failures; the 23 passes were not exhaustively re-audited. No fresh model run or warehouse recomputation was performed.
A familiar alias can be unsupported under a closed evidence policy without being factually false. CME identifies ES as E-mini S&P 500 futures and GC as Gold futures. These external references were added for this review; they were not supplied to the original grader and do not prove the identity or units of an arbitrary warehouse column.
Three cases are alias-related grading-artifact candidates, not confirmed recovered passes. Other alias-flagged cases still omit required uncertainty or mislabel native-unit values as dollars. The grader also applied inconsistent treatment to positive drawdown magnitudes. The table documents both false-positive concerns and a substantive error missed by the claim list.
| Cases | Review category | Evidence and remaining question |
|---|---|---|
| gold_002 | Answer error | The response gives 544,211 test rows; the saved canonical result is 557,211. This is a numerical error, not an alias issue. |
| gold_029 | Answer error | The response calls the top quintile strongest, but its own table gives bucket 1 higher expectancy (1.12 versus 0.82), total P&L and profit factor than bucket 5. The cautious cost disclaimer is a separate rubric question, not a reason to dismiss the ranking error. |
| gold_009, gold_015 | Incomplete answer | The saved grades identify omitted expectancy intervals and required caveats, with completeness and caveat scores below 3. Removing an alias or one-contract penalty would not resolve these omissions. |
| gold_014 | Mixed presentation / rubric issue | The prose gives drawdown as a positive loss magnitude, while the table correctly includes -$6,201.34. The original grader quotes a positive table entry that is not present in the saved response. This is not simply a wrong numeric result. A revised rule should distinguish a clearly labelled loss magnitude from a signed drawdown series, and still flag inconsistent or ambiguous presentation. The ES alias is a separate issue. |
| gold_019, gold_020, gold_022 | Alias-related grading-artifact candidate | All six saved rubric dimensions score at least 3; the listed unsupported claim is the ES or GC name expansion, with no recorded distorted claim. CME documents those product names. This supports reviewing the evidence policy, not automatically passing the answer. gold_019 also omits source-field and rebasing wording noted by its grader. gold_020 expresses drawdown as a loss magnitude, which that grader accepted, unlike gold_014. No fresh numerical recomputation was performed. |
| gold_011, gold_013, gold_016, gold_021, gold_026 | Unit / contract metadata review required | The saved grader flags one-contract wording, sometimes alongside aliases, while accepting the core numbers. Contract quantity changes the interpretation of P&L and is not merely a familiar name. Keep these failures pending evidence that explicitly records quantity, multiplier, units, split and cost treatment. gold_011's own grade describes one-contract language as both required and unsupported, which warrants reviewing the grader input. |
| gold_023 | Answer unit error missed by the claim list | The frozen reference labels expectancy and P&L as native units. The response attaches dollar signs to 9.50, 3.75, 2.70 and -0.43 without conversion. Its saved unsupported-claim list mentions only the ES alias. This is a substantive unit-label error, even though the values and ranking match. It must not be counted as an alias-only recovery. |
| challenge_012 | Mixed alias / caution policy review | The response warns that raw native-unit rankings are not normalized cross-market comparisons and do not establish tradability. Treating that limitation as an unsupported positive performance claim is questionable. The aliases require an approved mapping, and the prominence of the raw 'best' ranking still warrants review. No relabelled pass is assigned. |
| gold_030, challenge_007, challenge_008, challenge_009, challenge_010, challenge_011, challenge_013, challenge_014, challenge_015, challenge_016, challenge_020 | Required-tool mismatch; answer quality unresolved | These cases failed expected-tool checks and have no saved semantic grade. They establish a protocol mismatch under v2, not necessarily an incorrect or unsafe final answer. Review whether the required tool is essential evidence or one of several equivalent read-only routes. Do not waive a missing safety or evidence check merely because prose sounds reasonable. |
| challenge_019 | Chart-policy mismatch | The request combined incompatible units on one axis. The response refused that axis and returned text; v2 required a bar chart of one comparable metric plus text for the others. The safety intent was preserved but the requested alternative chart was omitted. A future rubric should explicitly choose whether safe text-only refusal is acceptable. Original result remains Fail. |
Download review notes (JSON) ยท Download original evaluation summary
Original run SHA-256: 1554f976e4f6ed840949e4141f8291b68814a454807ee8b5343e06538c408420