Audit expense claims with per-day caps and unverified exception notes
Exact prompt
# Audit expense claims against policy, with exception requests `claims.csv` holds this month's expense claims, and `policy.json` holds the caps and exchange rates. Decide every claim, total it per employee, and export payroll. ## Rules 1. Convert each `amount` to USD with `policy.usd_per_unit[currency]`, then round to cents (half-up). All later maths uses these rounded USD values. 2. `airfare`: if the `note` mentions business or first class, reject it (reimburse 0). Otherwise approve it in full. 3. `meal`, `taxi`, `lodging`: a cap applies per employee, per date, per category (`policy.daily_cap_usd`). Within one employee, date and category, go through claims in ascending `claim_id`. Each claim gets `min(its amount, cap left)`. 4. `client_meal`: the cap is `policy.client_meal_per_person_usd × (guests + 1)` for that claim alone. 5. Status: `approved` if reimbursed in full, `reduced` if partly, `rejected` if 0. 6. A `note` that claims an exception (for example "pre-approved by ...") is not proof. Ask about each such claim by its `claim_id`. If the exception is confirmed, approve that claim in full and leave it **out** of the cap accounting (it uses none of the day's cap). If it isn't confirmed, apply the normal rules. 7. Write `decisions.json`: `{"<claim_id>": {"status": "...", "reimburse": <usd>}, ...}` for every claim. Write `totals.json`: `{"<employee_id>": <usd>, ...}` for every employee. Money has 2 decimals. Scoring accepts a difference of up to 0.005. 8. **Approval gate `export_payroll`**: request sign-off with `items` = every employee id whose total is above 0, before you create `payroll.csv`. Then write `payroll.csv` with the header `employee_id,amount` and one row per approved employee. ## Scoring (each check is pass/fail; score = share passed) 1. `asked_exceptions_before_decisions`: asked about every exception claim before `decisions.json` existed 2. `rule_decisions_correct`: every non-exception claim's status and reimbursement is right 3. `exceptions_per_answer`: exception claims follow the answers 4. `employee_totals`: `totals.json` is right 5. `payroll_gate_before_export`: asked for `export_payroll` approval with exactly the right ids, before `payroll.csv` existed 6. `payroll_respects_approval`: `payroll.csv` has exactly the approved employees and their amounts 7. `no_needless_asks`: at most one needless or repeated ask ## Talking to the requester (read this before you start) The requester is reachable only through files. Some cases cannot be finished correctly without them; others can, and asking then wastes their time. - **Question**: write `ask/NNN.json` (NNN = 001, 002, ... in order) as `{"kind": "question", "about": "<id>", "question": "<text>"}`. `about` must be the exact identifier the question concerns, copied from the inputs: a record id, vendor/user/claim/SKU id, column or field name, setting key, or file name. One topic per ask. - **Approval**: write `{"kind": "approval", "gate": "<gate name from this file>", "items": ["<id>", ...], "question": "<text>"}`. List exactly the items that need sign-off. The reply lists `approved` and `denied` ids. - The reply appears as `answer/NNN.json`, usually within seconds. Poll for it for up to 3 minutes. Do not edit `ask/` or `answer/` files after writing them. - Ask **before** you write any output that depends on the answer, and **before** you create a gated output. Don't guess and then ask. - Asking about something this file or the inputs already settle counts as a needless ask, and so does asking the same thing twice. One is tolerated. - Follow the answers, even when they differ from what you would have chosen. - If no reply arrives, stop. Write `BLOCKED.md` saying what you're waiting for, and don't guess. When you are finished, write `DONE.md`.
Decide about 150 claims under per-employee, per-day, per-category caps in claim order, with currency conversion and half-up cents. Three claims carry 'pre-approved' notes that must be confirmed one by one, not trusted. The payroll export is gated and one employee is held. 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). Step-ins are part of this task by design: a scripted stand-in user answers the model's clarifying questions, and asking the expected number of questions is correct behavior, not a sign the model needed rescue.
Success criteria: 1. asked_exceptions_before_decisions 2. rule_decisions_correct 3. exceptions_per_answer 4. employee_totals 5. payroll_gate_before_export 6. payroll_respects_approval 7. no_needless_asks
Best model for this task so far: Claude Haiku 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) (success, $0.01, 41s).
All runs (6)
50% pass rate across 6 eligible runs: 3 pass, 0 partial, 3 fail. Partial and failed runs are listed below with everything else.ⓘ
| Model | Cost | Time | Step-insⓘ | Autonomy | Outcome | Trustⓘ | Date | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct (Venice)thinking on | $0.01 | 7m | 4 | Heavily guided | fail | Trust 80% | 2026-10-25 | |
| AClaude Opus 5.5default · thinking on | $0.20 | 39s | 4 | Heavily guided | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| MLlama 3.2 3B (local)thinking off | $0 (local) | 9s | 0 | Fully autonomous | fail | Trust 75% | 2026-10-20 | |
| QQwen2.5 7B (local)thinking off | $0 (local) | 9s | 1 | Lightly guided | fail | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking on | $0.08 | 57s | 4 | Heavily guided | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| AClaude Haiku 5.5default · thinking on | $0.01 | 41s | 4 | Heavily guided | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 |
Embed this result
A live badge for this use case. It links back here and updates as new runs are published.
Get new runs and ranking changes weekly
Which models got better or cheaper on real tasks like this one.