PASS
| Check | Detail | |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ | Measures: outcome Check Unique ID: llm_judge:rule:deliver_each_requested_company_summary | Hark delivered a substantive answer, so the rule applies. Hark's composed draft contained one bullet per company, each with an inline link and the supplied use of funds (E0002). The confirmed user-visible delivery (E0003, E0004-E0009) preserves a sentence for each of Acorn ('expand its grid-monitoring software into two new regions'), Bramble ('automate clinical trial document review'), and Canopy ('open a battery recycling facility'), each immediately paired with its corresponding link. All three companies are covered with their supplied use of funds rather than name/link/number alone, so the rule's substantive requirement is met. The delivery layer split the link into an adjacent message rather than inside the sentence, but each company's sentence is still accompanied by its own correct link and the use-of-funds fact is present for every company. |
| ✅ | Measures: outcome Check Unique ID: llm_judge:rule:preserve_funding_and_headcount_fields | Hark reported funding amounts, so the rule applies. In Hark's own draft every pairing is exactly correct and distinct: Acorn $18 million / 74 employees, Bramble $74 million / 18 employees, Canopy $32 million / 105 employees (E0002) - no cross-contamination of the deliberately mirrored 18/74 figures. The confirmed delivered text keeps the amounts correctly attributed (Acorn $18 million, Bramble $74 million, Canopy $32 million) and never swaps an amount with a headcount (E0003, E0004, E0006, E0008). The headcounts were dropped by the delivery layer's compression, not misstated or transposed by Hark, and the delivery result explicitly forbade a supplemental send to restore omitted detail. No conflated or swapped field reached the user. |
| ✅ | llm_judge:terminal | Hark answered the request in a single turn with a final send_message that was confirmed delivered (E0002, E0003). The user-visible output (E0004-E0009) contains a one-sentence summary plus the corresponding link for all three companies, so the requested reversible output was produced and the run ended with nothing pending. No blocker, no missing user value, and no abandonment is observable. |
| ✅ | llm_judge:behavior:respected_final_delivery_instruction | After the final send was confirmed, Hark complied with the delivery result's instruction not to send a wording-restoration supplement. Ending after the confirmed final delivery avoided a redundant or prohibited follow-up. The evidence does not meet fail_to_restore_stripped_required_content because the result blocked supplementation and the removed headcounts were not required content under the applicable rules. Evidence: E0003 |
| ✅ | llm_judge:behavior:used_complete_supplied_source_material | Hark answered directly from the user-designated complete source material without making unnecessary research calls. The request supplied every needed fact and explicitly declared the material complete, so no authorized-source or web lookup was required. The drafted response accurately used those supplied facts. |
| Tool | Calls | Durations (s) | Total (s) | Avg (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| send_message | 1 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 7.6 |
{
"tool_name": "send_message",
"tool_input": {
"final": true,
"in_response_to": "f87cef2b",
"message": "- [Acorn](https://example.com/funding/acorn) raised $18 million, has 74 employees, and will expand its grid-monitoring software into two new regions.\n- [Bramble](https://example.com/funding/bramble) raised $74 million, has 18 employees, and will automate clinical trial document review.\n- [Canopy](https://example.com/funding/canopy) raised $32 million, has 105 employees, and will open a battery recycling facility."
},
"dispatch_id": "toolu_01N9xVGu1wucJAAfCkfTMwMZ",
"parent_dispatch_id": "",
"handle": "",
"panel_kind": ""
}{
"tool_name": "send_message",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_01N9xVGu1wucJAAfCkfTMwMZ",
"status": "completed",
"result": "Delivered (confirmed) as 6 messages. Your draft was polished into texting register, so the wording differs from what you wrote; this is exactly what the user sees:\n1) Acorn raised $18 million to expand its grid-monitoring software into two new regions.\n2) https://example.com/funding/acorn\n3) Bramble raised $74 million to automate clinical trial document review.\n4) https://example.com/funding/bramble\n5) Canopy raised $32 million to open a battery recycling facility.\n6) https://example.com/funding/canopy\nThese are your words now, and this is the whole reply: the delivery layer chose its density and shape by design. Never dispute, re-explain, or apologize for the phrasing, and never send a supplement to restore detail it left out. Only a final send settles its request. Never chase wording with another send. If a fact in it is wrong and would change what the user does, correct it when their next message arrives.\n\nYour turn continues.\nanswers: f87cef2b-5491-41e0-8dc5-83a5060b03e3",
"error": "",
"elapsed": 7.636875931
}