Gemini 4 Argon · Email and chat catch-up

Formatting is for reading only. Raw text and Copy give the stored answer exactly. Fingerprint d19ed54e16a45587.

1. 1I was away for two days. From the messages below, list: (1) decisions that were actually made, (2) action items with their owner and deadline if one was stated, (3) anything still open. Leave out chatter. Do not guess owners or deadlines.
2. 2
3. 3[Slack #launch] Erik: morning all
4. 4[Slack #launch] Sara: we need to pick the launch date. I vote 12 November
5. 5[Slack #launch] Erik: 12 Nov works for me
6. 6[Slack #launch] Lina: agreed, 12 Nov it is. Locking it.
7. 7[Email] Jonas → team: Can someone update the pricing page before launch?
8. 8[Slack #launch] Sara: I'll take the pricing page
9. 9[Slack #launch] Erik: anyone seen the new coffee machine lol
10. 10[Email] Lina → team: Decision: we're dropping the free tier for now. Paid plans only at launch.
11. 11[Slack #launch] Jonas: what about a launch webinar? could be fun
12. 12[Slack #launch] Erik: maybe, let's think about it
13. 13[Slack #design] Mia: the hero image is 80% done
14. 14[Slack #design] Lina: Mia can you finish the hero image?
15. 15[Slack #design] Mia: yes will do
16. 16[Email] Sara → Jonas: Please send me the customer quotes for the slides by Friday.
17. 17[Email] Jonas → Sara: Will do.
18. 18[Slack #launch] Erik: lunch?
19. 19[Slack #launch] Lina: Erik, please brief support about the paid-only change
20. 20[Slack #launch] Erik: on it
21. 21[Slack #random] Mia: weekend plans anyone?
22. 22[Slack #launch] Sara: webinar idea is nice but not decided yet

Line numbers count every line of the prompt, including the instruction and blank lines; the model received the text without them.

Every check

• Final: PassAll 4 action items foundCriticalInterpretive review

  Judge result: Both judges passed it

  • Original judge verdict, GPT-6 Astra: pass — All four action items are included.
  • Original judge verdict, Claude Sonnet 5: pass — All 4 action items (Sara, Mia, Jonas, Erik) are listed.

  Check against the source · the answer

• Final: PassOwners match the sourceCriticalInterpretive review

  Judge result: Both judges passed it

  • Original judge verdict, GPT-6 Astra: pass — All action owners match the reference notes.
  • Original judge verdict, Claude Sonnet 5: pass — Owners match the source for all four items.

  Check against the source · the answer

• Final: PassNo invented deadlinesCriticalInterpretive review

  Judge result: Both judges failed it

  Evaluator correction (eval-1.0 → eval-1.1, 2026-10-16 15:57 UTC): original verdict fail, corrected to pass. The reference notes given to the judges said Jonas's Friday deadline was the only one. The source also contains Jonas's request to update the pricing page "before launch", which Sara accepts, and the launch date is locked as 12 November. Reporting the pricing-page deadline as "before launch (12 November)" is supported by the source, so "No invented deadlines" should pass. The judges followed the faulty notes. The answer was not re-run.

  • Original judge verdict, GPT-6 Astra: fail — The pricing page deadline is invented according to the reference notes.
  • Original judge verdict, Claude Sonnet 5: fail — Invented a 'before launch (12 November)' deadline for Sara's pricing page task that wasn't stated.

  Supporting source: Launch date confirmed (12 November) (lines 4–6) · Pricing page requested before launch (line 7) · Sara accepts the pricing page (line 8) · the answer

• Final: PassOpen proposal not reported as decidedCriticalInterpretive review

  Judge result: Both judges passed it

  • Original judge verdict, GPT-6 Astra: pass — The launch webinar is correctly listed as still open.
  • Original judge verdict, Claude Sonnet 5: pass — Webinar correctly listed as open/undecided, not as a decision.

  Check against the source · the answer

Judge verdicts are the AI judges' original output. A human decision or evaluator correction is labelled separately. Two judges agreeing is not proof of correctness.

Run details

Requested model

google/gemini-4-argon

Returned identifier

google/gemini-4-argon

Provider / route

Google API (via an AI gateway)

Settings sent

{}

Left to provider default

temperature, max_tokens, reasoning, system prompt, tools

Model revision

Not exposed by the provider

Completion status

completed

Answer time

4.4 s (request to final token)

Run finished

2026-10-16 15:22 UTC

Technical retries

None on the published attempt; any retry is logged on the superseded attempt

Judges

anthropic/claude-sonnet-5 → claude-sonnet-5 · openai/gpt-6-astra → gpt-6-astra

Judge prompt version

judge-v1

Evaluation version at run

Not recorded (eval-1.0, implied by the recorded judge prompt)

Checker version at run

Not recorded

Current adjudication

eval-1.1 (governs the displayed outcome)

Human review

Reviewed 2026-10-16 15:25 UTC (model identity visible to the reviewer)

Prompt fingerprint

e058020496a0fdbfc97d37ab7dbb0440f7f8f98b459494ae07a5a4062a67a5f4

Answer fingerprint

d19ed54e16a45587378baf58450a21c520c17f1c28763c4a5c044b420cd06189

Cost and token figures are not shown: the benchmark does not publish estimates.

You are an impartial judge in a public AI benchmark. Grade the ANSWER strictly against the checks, using the REFERENCE NOTES as ground truth. Be literal: a check passes only if it is fully met.

TASK GIVEN TO THE MODEL:
I was away for two days. From the messages below, list: (1) decisions that were actually made, (2) action items with their owner and deadline if one was stated, (3) anything still open. Leave out chatter. Do not guess owners or deadlines.

[Slack #launch] Erik: morning all
[Slack #launch] Sara: we need to pick the launch date. I vote 12 November
[Slack #launch] Erik: 12 Nov works for me
[Slack #launch] Lina: agreed, 12 Nov it is. Locking it.
[Email] Jonas → team: Can someone update the pricing page before launch?
[Slack #launch] Sara: I'll take the pricing page
[Slack #launch] Erik: anyone seen the new coffee machine lol
[Email] Lina → team: Decision: we're dropping the free tier for now. Paid plans only at launch.
[Slack #launch] Jonas: what about a launch webinar? could be fun
[Slack #launch] Erik: maybe, let's think about it
[Slack #design] Mia: the hero image is 80% done
[Slack #design] Lina: Mia can you finish the hero image?
[Slack #design] Mia: yes will do
[Email] Sara → Jonas: Please send me the customer quotes for the slides by Friday.
[Email] Jonas → Sara: Will do.
[Slack #launch] Erik: lunch?
[Slack #launch] Lina: Erik, please brief support about the paid-only change
[Slack #launch] Erik: on it
[Slack #random] Mia: weekend plans anyone?
[Slack #launch] Sara: webinar idea is nice but not decided yet

REFERENCE NOTES (true facts about the source):
Decisions: launch date 12 November; free tier dropped (paid plans only at launch). Action items: Sara — update pricing page (no deadline); Mia — finish hero image (no deadline); Jonas — send customer quotes to Sara by Friday (the ONLY stated deadline); Erik — brief support about the paid-only change (no deadline). Open: launch webinar (explicitly not decided). Any deadline other than Jonas's Friday is invented.

CHECKS:
- "actions": All 4 action items found
- "owners": Owners match the source
- "deadlines": No invented deadlines
- "open": Open proposal not reported as decided

ANSWER:
<<<
**(1) Decisions made**
* The launch date is locked for 12 November.
* The free tier is being dropped for now; there will be paid plans only at launch.

**(2) Action items**
* **Update the pricing page** – Owner: Sara | Deadline: Before launch *(12 November)*
* **Finish the hero image** – Owner: Mia | Deadline: *None stated*
* **Send customer quotes for the slides to Sara** – Owner: Jonas | Deadline: By Friday
* **Brief support about the paid-only change** – Owner: Erik | Deadline: *None stated*

**(3) Still open**
* Whether or not to host a launch webinar.
>>>

Reply with JSON only, no prose, in exactly this shape:
{"checks":{"<check id>":{"pass":true|false,"reason":"one short sentence"}},"summary":"one sentence on the main strength or weakness"}