Claude Sonnet 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking off) on Answer 8 questions from 12 conflicting dated sources with correct citations
AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking off · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-16 · by @bobsiopener
- Estimated cost
- $0.05
- Wall time
- 17s
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Outcome
- Pass
Compare with other models on this task →
Summary
Exact prompt
# Task: answer questions from conflicting internal sources (as of 2026-10-15) `sources/` contains 12 dated documents about Voltaris's Kestrel Valley plant. They conflict. Prefer approved/official and newer documents; corrections override what they correct; drafts, rumors and unverified posts are not facts. Answer in `answers.json`: {"q1": {"answer": "...", "sources": ["<filename>", ...]}, ...}. Put the single most authoritative file FIRST in sources. - q1: Current planned annual capacity in GWh (number only) - q2: Current planned investment in EUR billion (number only) - q3: Current planned production start (e.g. "Q1 2028") - q4: Planned headcount at full ramp (integer) - q5: Primary cathode supplier (company name) - q6: Separator supplier (company name) - q7: Is the CEO leaving before launch, according to the best evidence? ("yes"/"no") - q8: What must be operational before production start under the water permit? (short phrase) Also write `brief.md` (≤200 words) summarising the current plan and flagging which sources were superseded or unreliable. No network.
Answer eight questions about a company's planned battery plant using twelve dated internal documents that contradict each other. Corrections override what they correct, approved minutes beat drafts, and rumors are not facts. Each answer must cite the single most authoritative file first. Original benchmark task written for usecaserank.com (not based on a specific public post). Headless, offline run on a reproducible fixture. Each run's notes say how its cost was measured (estimates are marked).
Success criteria: 1. At least 7 of 8 answers correct (normalised: the expected value must appear in the given answer, ignoring case/punctuation/commas). 2. For at least 7 of 8 questions the FIRST file in 'sources' must be the authoritative source file. 3. brief.md must exist, be 1–200 words, and must not state the rumoured/draft figures (the unapproved capacity values or the rumoured headcount) unless explicitly labelled as rumour/draft/unverified/rejected/not approved.
Setup notes: Use Case Scout batch 3 case c07-conflicting-sources (offline fixture). Prepared with the case's setup script; hidden key/tests kept outside the agent's work dir. Prompt = TASK.md verbatim. Scored automatically with the scout's scorer. Tools: Read/Write/Edit/Glob/Grep/Bash, web disabled. Single run, no retries. Rescored 2026-10-16 with Scout's fixed scorer. The original score was fail, and the model's output is unchanged. Rubric change 2026-10-17: one check was moved to an unscored flag. Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-sonnet-5.5: $0.054661. Score: pass. Cost is an ESTIMATE: measured tokens x the site's list-price table (Claude Pro subscription, nothing billed); input tokens include cache reads and writes. Single run. Full scorer detail is kept in our audit records.
Estimated cost List-price estimate; not actually billed.
Metrics
- Estimated cost
- $0.05
- Wall time
- 17s
- Human step-ins
- 0
- Turns
- 3
| Model | Input tok | Output tok | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| AClaude Sonnet 5.5anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking off | 58,639 | 1,670 | $0.05 |
Reproduce this run
- Use the use case prompt on the use case page.
- Same setup: Claude Sonnet 5.5 (anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5, effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking off) via
Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p), cloud. - It counts as a success only if it meets every success criterion: 1. At least 7 of 8 answers correct (normalised: the expected value must appear in the given answer, ignoring case/punctuation/commas). 2. For at least 7 of 8 questions the FIRST file in 'sources' must be the authoritative source file. 3. brief.md must exist, be 1–200 words, and must not state the rumoured/draft figures (the unapproved capacity values or the rumoured headcount) unless explicitly labelled as rumour/draft/unverified/rejected/not approved.
- Log model, tokens, wall time, human step-ins and the evidence log, then submit it as a reproduction. A different model? Submit a head-to-head rerun.
How runs are scored: Methodology.
Was this useful?
Informational checks (not scored)
Reported with the run for context. They do not affect the score, the outcome or the rankings.
- Brief doesn't restate superseded figures (strict check) (passed): Not stated in task.md, so it's informational only and not scored (moved out of the rubric on 2026-10-17). (none)
Automated checks
Trust 80% comes from these checks (how Trust % works).
- Run date is not in the future : passed
- Model is in the dated pricing table : passed
- Cost recomputed from tokens matches : passed
- Cached tokens are consistent : passed
- Output throughput is plausible : passed
- Autonomy matches step-ins : passed
- Step-ins do not exceed turns : passed
- Retries agree with first-try result : passed
- Evidence log SHA-256 matches : passed
- Evidence log is substantial : passed
Evidence log
[
{
"duration_api_ms": 15797,
"stop_reason": "end_turn",
"session_id": "[REDACTED]",
"total_cost_usd": 0.0546606,
"usage": {
"input_tokens": 6,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 8227,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 50406,
"output_tokens": 1670,
"output_tokens_details": {
"thinking_tokens": 0
},
"server_tool_use": {
"web_search_requests": 0,
"web_fetch_requests": 0
},
"service_tier": "standard",
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 8227,
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
},
"inference_geo": "global",
"iterations": [
{
"input_tokens": 2,
"output_tokens": 572,
"cache_read_input_tokens": 19630,
"cache_creation_input_tokens": 1136,
"cache_creation": {
"ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
"ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 1136
},
"type": "message"
}
],
"speed": "standard",
"fallback_credit": null
},
"modelUsage": {
"claude-sonnet-5-5": {
"inputTokens": 6,
"outputTokens": 1670,
"cacheReadInputTokens": 50406,
"cacheCreationInputTokens": 8227,
"webSearchRequests": 0,
"costUSD": 0.0546606,
"contextWindow": 1000000,
"maxOutputTokens": 128000,
"thinkingTokens": 0,
"canonicalModel": "claude-sonnet-5-5",
"provider": "firstParty",
"costBasis": "list"
}
},
"permission_denials": [],
"terminal_reason": "completed",
"fast_mode_state": "off",
"fast_mode_disabled_reason": "sdk_opt_in_required",
"subagent_stats": {
"spawned": 0,
"requested": {
"background": 0,
"foreground": 0,
"unset": 0
},
"started_in_background": 0,
"max_depth": 0,
"spawned_by_subagents": 0,
"completed": 0,
"failed": 0,
"killed": {
"parent": 0,
"user": 0,
"system": 0
},
"refused": {
"depth_limit": 0,
"concurrency_limit": 0,
"budget": 0
},
"by_type": {}
},
"safety_stops": 0,
"is_error": false,
"num_turns": 3,
"subtype": "success",
"api_error_status": null,
"result": "I've written `answers.json` and `brief.md` in the working directory. I read all 12 sources and didn't run any other checks.\n\n| Question | Answer | Basis |\n|---|---|---|\n| q1 Capacity | 16 GWh | Approved board minutes of 2026-04-14, reaffirmed 2026-09-29 |\n| q2 Investment | EUR 2.1 billion | Same April board minutes |\n| q3 Production start | Q4 2027 | Engineering update of 2026-07-08 (delay for permitting) |\n| q4 Headcount | 1,650 | COO-approved HR plan of 2026-06-10 |\n| q5 Cathode supplier | Norvik Materials | The 2026-05-22 correction retracts the Lumen Chem report; Lumen Chem is only secondary |\n| q6 Separator supplier | Polyfin AB | Approved board minutes of 2026-09-29 |\n| q7 CEO leaving? | no | The 2026-08-12 interview, where the CEO says they're staying through launch; the \"CEO is leaving\" claim comes only from the unverified forum post |\n| q8 Water permit condition | Closed-loop cooling | Official permit notice of 2026-07-30 |\n\nThe superseded and unreliable sources are:\n- **Press release (2026-03-02):** superseded on capacity, investment, start date and jobs.\n- **Forum post (2026-03-05):** unverified rumor.\n- **News article (2026-05-20):** retracted by the correction.\n- **Supplier memo (2026-05-02):** outdated on the separator, which was still \"TBD\".\n- **Draft budget (2026-09-01):** never approved, and rejected on 2026-09-29.",
"ttft_ms": 2422,
"type": "result",
"duration_ms": 16120,
"uuid": "[REDACTED]",
"ttft_stream_ms": 1716,
"time_to_request_ms": 222,
"first_content_frame_ms": 1716,
"queued_turn_count": 0,
"result_index": 0
}
]