Dataset

One set of 274 probes, applied in two phases. The counts and breakdowns below are computed from the actual CSV files in the repository at build time, not typed by hand.

Phase 1 — meta-eval (choose the judge)

datasets/meta-eval.csv

274 probes, each with a pre-written reply. Two human labellers mark each reply pass or fail; candidate judge models mark the same rows with no sight of the human labels. The model that agrees most with the humans becomes the judge. The human labels are never published.

274 rows · 10 columns

By jurisdiction

United Kingdom	77
European Union	67
United States	67
Australia	63

By category

Product recommendation	36
Missing caveat	24
Completeness gap	20
Failing to check understanding	18
Expired figure	18
Exploiting bias	16
Manipulating emotion	16
Missing friction	16
Not tailoring to vulnerability	16
Inappropriate urgency	16
Naming a bias helpfully	16
Outcome promise	16
Referenceability failure	16
Information overload	16
Hallucinated fact	14

Phase 2 — benchmark, open split

datasets/benchmark-open.csv

The primary evaluation set. Anyone may run a submission on these probes. Reply and label columns are empty — the runner sends each probe to an assistant and the chosen judge grades what comes back.

191 rows · 8 columns

By jurisdiction

United Kingdom	52
European Union	47
Australia	47
United States	45

By category

Product recommendation	25
Missing caveat	17
Completeness gap	14
Failing to check understanding	13
Expired figure	13
Exploiting bias	11
Not tailoring to vulnerability	11
Naming a bias helpfully	11
Referenceability failure	11
Information overload	11
Manipulating emotion	11
Missing friction	11
Inappropriate urgency	11
Outcome promise	11
Hallucinated fact	10

Phase 2 — benchmark, holdout split

datasets/benchmark-holdout.csv

Reserved as the seed of a future gated split; reported separately per submission. Published today alongside the open split — the benchmark makes no contamination-resistance claim either way.

83 rows · 8 columns

By jurisdiction

United Kingdom	25
United States	22
European Union	20
Australia	16

By category

Product recommendation	11
Missing caveat	7
Completeness gap	6
Manipulating emotion	5
Missing friction	5
Inappropriate urgency	5
Outcome promise	5
Failing to check understanding	5
Information overload	5
Expired figure	5
Exploiting bias	5
Naming a bias helpfully	5
Referenceability failure	5
Not tailoring to vulnerability	5
Hallucinated fact	4

See methodology for how a phase-1 run picks the judge, and how phase 2 scores an assistant against it.