Skip to content

Retirement drawdown with a 4% rule, inflation raises and a skip-raise-after-loss guardrail

Exact prompt

# Retirement drawdown: the 4% rule with inflation raises and a guardrail `input.json` describes one retiree and one assumed sequence of yearly market returns and inflation rates (synthetic data). Write `solve.py` (Python 3 standard library only) so that `python solve.py input.json answer.json` reads the input and writes the answer. We re-run it on fresh inputs of the same shape, so do not hard-code anything. ## Input `start_age`, `end_age` (integers), `start_balance`, `withdrawal_rate` (e.g. 0.04), `fee_rate` (yearly fraction), `returns` and `inflation` (lists of fractions, one per year, length `end_age - start_age`). ## Rules 1. There are n = `end_age - start_age` years, k = 0 .. n-1. Year k is the year the retiree is age `start_age + k`. 2. The planned withdrawal for year 0 is W0 = `start_balance * withdrawal_rate`. For k >= 1 the planned withdrawal is last year's planned withdrawal times `(1 + inflation[k-1])`. 3. **Guardrail scenario only:** for k >= 1, if `returns[k-1] < 0` (strictly) the raise is skipped that year: the planned withdrawal stays equal to last year's planned withdrawal. Later raises apply to the frozen amount; there is no catch-up. 4. Each year, the withdrawal is taken at the start of the year: actual withdrawal w = min(planned, balance). Then balance = (balance - w) * (1 + returns[k]) * (1 - fee_rate). 5. `depletion_age` = `start_age + k` for the first year k where w < planned (the full planned amount could not be paid), otherwise `null`. `shortfall_total` = sum over all years of (planned - w). `total_withdrawn` = sum of w. 6. `path` = the balance at the end of each year (after rule 4), n values. `final_balance` = the last one. `real_final_balance` = `final_balance` divided by the product of `(1 + inflation[k])` over all n years. 7. Keep full floating-point precision while computing; round money outputs to 2 decimals only when writing. ## Output `answer.json`: `{"standard": S, "guardrail": G}` where each of S and G is an object with keys `final_balance`, `real_final_balance`, `total_withdrawn`, `shortfall_total`, `depletion_age`, `path`. "standard" ignores rule 3; "guardrail" applies it. ## Chart (required visual) Also write `chart.svg` in the working directory: a static, self-contained SVG (root element `<svg>`, no scripts, no external images, fonts, stylesheets or links) that can be rendered headless. It must contain `<polyline id="standard">` and `<polyline id="guardrail">` drawing the two `path` balance series against year. ## Scoring The `chart_svg_static` check (one more check, counted in partial credit) passes only if `chart.svg` exists after the fixture run, parses, has root `<svg>`, contains the ids above with the stated tags, and has no `<script>`, `<img>`/`<image>`, `<link>`, `<iframe>`/`<object>`/`<embed>`, `on*` handlers, or `href`/`src` pointing anywhere except `#...` or `data:`. Its drawing is not graded. Hidden checks (partial credit = fraction passed; all must pass). Money values must match the reference within 0.011; `depletion_age` exactly; `path` must have exactly n values. - `standard_path`, `standard_summary` (the five summary keys), `guardrail_scenario`: on the given `input.json`. - `fresh_standard`, `fresh_guardrail`: on a fresh input. - `depletion_and_shortfall`: both scenarios on a fresh input where the money runs out. Each run has a 60-second limit.

Exact year-by-year balances depend on withdrawal timing, fee application order, the strict-negative guardrail with no catch-up, and how depletion and shortfall are recorded; fresh inputs include one where money runs out. 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).

These are synthetic test cases for comparing AI models, not financial advice.

Success criteria: 1. standard_path 2. standard_summary 3. guardrail_scenario 4. fresh_standard 5. fresh_guardrail 6. depletion_and_shortfall 7. chart_svg_static

Best model for this task so far: Claude Haiku 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) (success, $0.0062, 23s). Best AI model for Finance / Retirement Planning →

Latest output per model

Run this on another model

All runs (8)

88% pass rate across 8 eligible runs: 7 pass, 0 partial, 1 fail. Partial and failed runs are listed below with everything else.ⓘ

Runs for this use case
ModelCostTimeStep-insⓘAutonomyOutcomeTrustⓘDateCompare
ZGLM 4.7 (Venice)thinking on$0.013m0Fully autonomouspassTrust 80%2026-11-04
QQwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice)thinking on$0.00915m0Fully autonomouspassTrust 80%2026-10-24
DDeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Venice)thinking on$0.00735m0Fully autonomouspassTrust 80%2026-10-24
MMistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct (Venice)thinking on$0.00645m0Fully autonomousfailTrust 80%2026-10-24
OGPT-6.1 Soldefault · thinking off$0.052m0Fully autonomouspassTrust 80%2026-10-20
AClaude Haiku 5.5default · thinking on$0.006223s0Fully autonomouspassTrust 80%2026-10-20
AClaude Opus 5.5default · thinking on$0.1528s0Fully autonomouspassTrust 80%2026-10-20
AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking off$0.0615s0Fully autonomouspassTrust 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.

UseCaseRank badge for Retirement drawdown with a 4% rule, inflation raises and a skip-raise-after-loss guardrail

Get new runs and ranking changes weekly

Which models got better or cheaper on real tasks like this one.