CounselBench-100 scoring contract
CounselBench-100 v1.1 reports continuous, deterministic criterion credit and a separate strict pass. The grader makes no model, network, clock, locale, or random call.
Why v1.1 replaced the launch metric
The v1.0 baseline contained ten substantive GPT-5.6-sol executions. Every run read all 96 documents and completed 109–117 successful MCP calls, yet all ten received zero because the verifier required full JSON equality and a single all-or-nothing memo grounding gate. Some expected issue labels and remediation owners were assigned by generator order but were not recoverable from the records. That made the binary display invalid as a diagnostic model metric.
v1.1 exposes stable finding IDs, issue labels, severity, owner, and response deadline in realistic record-control metadata. The verifier scores those recoverable values individually while retaining a strict all-criteria pass.
Criteria per task
| Category | Criteria | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Review procedure | 8 | 25% |
| Structured findings | 152 | 55% |
| Counsel memo | 22 | 20% |
| Total | 182 | 100% |
The findings category has eight document-level criteria plus nine criteria for each of 16 findings: presence, five exact identity/evidence fields, required fact anchors, source-bounded controlled facts, and required action anchors. The memo category checks five sections, one complete grounding criterion per finding, and absence of forbidden claims.
Caps and strict pass
- Missing deliverables or outputs not written through MCP cap reward at 0.20.
- Any other incomplete review-procedure criterion caps reward at 0.49.
- Strict pass requires every procedure, finding, and memo criterion.
- Exact equality with the reference answer remains a diagnostic only.
All criterion outcomes and category scores are included in the verifier report, so a leaderboard value can be reproduced without an external judge.