Claude Opus 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) on Answer 8 questions from 12 conflicting dated sources with correct citations

AClaude Opus 5.5default · thinking on · Claude Code 2.1.299 (headless -p) · cloud · 2026-10-16 · by @bobsiopener

Trust 80%Fully autonomoussuccess · first trySupersededCompare

Estimated cost: $0.15
Wall time: 24s
Human step-ins: 0
Outcome: Pass

Compare with other models on this task →

Superseded. This run was rescored on 2026-10-28 and replaced by a newer run. It no longer counts toward rankings, use-case tables or the data export; it is kept here for the record.

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 (short phrase) Also write `brief.md` (≤200 words) summarising the current plan and flagging which sources were superseded or unreliable.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 batch3/prepare.sh; hidden key/tests kept outside the agent's work dir. Prompt = TASK.md verbatim. Scored with the scout's scorer: `python score.py WORKDIR KEYDIR/key.json`. Tools: Read/Write/Edit/Glob/Grep/Bash, web disabled. Single run, no retries. Rescored 2026-10-16 with Scout's fixed scorer (see usecase-scout/AUDIT-batches1-5-2026-10-17.md). The original score was pass, and the model's output is unchanged. Rubric change 2026-10-17: one check was moved to unscored_flags. See usecase-scout/AUDIT-batches1-5-2026-10-17.md. Claude Code's own reported cost for claude-opus-5.5: $0.150925. Score: pass. Cost is an ESTIMATE: measured tokens x pricing.json list price (Claude Pro subscription, nothing billed); input_tokens include cache reads and writes. Single run.

Estimated cost List-price estimate; not actually billed.

Metrics

Estimated cost: $0.15
Wall time: 24s
Human step-ins: 0
Turns: 7

Model usage
Model	Input tok	Output tok	Cost
AClaude Opus 5.5anthropic/claude-opus-5.5effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on	99,736	2,842	$0.15

Reproduce this run

Use the use case prompt on the use case page.
Same setup: Claude Opus 5.5 (anthropic/claude-opus-5.5, effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) 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?

⇄ Rerun on another model

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": 23431,
  "stop_reason": "end_turn",
  "session_id": "[REDACTED]",
  "total_cost_usd": 0.1509252,
  "usage": {
   "input_tokens": 10,
   "cache_creation_input_tokens": 9500,
   "cache_read_input_tokens": 90226,
   "output_tokens": 2842,
   "output_tokens_details": {
    "thinking_tokens": 25
   },
   "server_tool_use": {
    "web_search_requests": 0,
    "web_fetch_requests": 0
   },
   "service_tier": "standard",
   "cache_creation": {
    "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 9500,
    "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0
   },
   "inference_geo": "global",
   "iterations": [
    {
     "input_tokens": 2,
     "output_tokens": 608,
     "cache_read_input_tokens": 20736,
     "cache_creation_input_tokens": 910,
     "cache_creation": {
      "ephemeral_5m_input_tokens": 0,
      "ephemeral_1h_input_tokens": 910
     },
     "type": "message"
    }
   ],
   "speed": "standard",
   "fallback_credit": null
  },
  "modelUsage": {
   "claude-opus-5-5": {
    "inputTokens": 10,
    "outputTokens": 2842,
    "cacheReadInputTokens": 90226,
    "cacheCreationInputTokens": 9500,
    "webSearchRequests": 0,
    "costUSD": 0.1509252,
    "contextWindow": 1000000,
    "maxOutputTokens": 128000,
    "thinkingTokens": 25,
    "canonicalModel": "claude-opus-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": 7,
  "subtype": "success",
  "api_error_status": null,
  "result": "I've written `answers.json` and `brief.md`. The JSON file is valid, and the brief is 183 words, under the 200 limit.\n\n| Q | Answer | Most authoritative source (listed first) |\n|---|---|---|\n| q1 | 16 GWh | `12_board_minutes_2026-09-29.md` (approved; keeps the April capacity) |\n| q2 | EUR 2.1 billion | `03_board_minutes_2026-04-14.md` |\n| q3 | Q4 2027 | `08_engineering_update_2026-07-08.md` |\n| q4 | 1650 | `07_hr_plan_2026-06-10.md` |\n| q5 | Norvik Materials | `06_correction_2026-05-22.md` |\n| q6 | Polyfin AB | `12_board_minutes_2026-09-29.md` |\n| q7 | no | `10_ceo_interview_2026-08-12.md` |\n| q8 | closed-loop cooling | `09_permit_notice_2026-07-30.md` |\n\nSources I set aside, as flagged in the brief:\n- **Superseded:** the press release (01), whose capacity, investment, start date and jobs figures were all replaced by later documents.\n- **Unverified:** the anonymous forum post (02).\n- **Retracted:** the trade news article about Lumen Chem (05), which the correction (06) withdrew.\n- **Not approved:** the draft budget (11), which the board rejected on 2026-09-29.\n\nTwo judgement calls:\n- **q3:** the Q4 2027 start date comes from an engineering update that isn't marked as approved. It's the newest document on timing and nothing contradicts it.\n- **q7:** the \"no\" rests on the CEO's own statement that they're staying through the launch. The only claim that they're leaving is the unverified forum post.",
  "ttft_ms": 1970,
  "type": "result",
  "duration_ms": 23829,
  "uuid": "[REDACTED]",
  "ttft_stream_ms": 914,
  "time_to_request_ms": 239,
  "first_content_frame_ms": 914,
  "queued_turn_count": 0,
  "result_index": 0
 }
]