Raycaster/ Eval

APEX-Agents · Law

Task ymtecb81

Best published8/9Fail

APEX-Agents task Task ymtecb81 in AI Agents for Tariff and Trade Law Analysis. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models, scores, and public traces.

AI Agents for Tariff and Trade Law AnalysisLaw World 416Dual harnessGrader: rubric
task_bf18a6d6ff44489daf0b1c80b5d4a3a8
Law World 416
message_in_console
7 models · dual config

Task prompt

What the agent was asked to do

Can you take a look at the two Master Supply Agreement templates (Master Supply Agreement Template.pdf ("Template1"), Master Supply Agreement 2.pdf ("Template2"))? We’re considering them for Acme (the steel supplier) and we want a comparison. I need to know how each template deals with tariff‑related cost exposure, since Acme is importing steel from outside USMCA and the new tariffs are creating real financial pressure. Also, TAC is thinking about giving Acme a cash infusion secured by a lien on their receivables, but we’re worried about what happens if Acme goes bankrupt. Could you assess whether that financing structure would expose TAC to creditor claims, and which template gives TAC the most operational control? Please point to the clauses that support your analysis. Now, send me a clear text summary straight in here.

Published trajectories

Agent runs on this task

Curated dual-harness runs (parsed + original sandbox). Best scored run per model.

ModelHarnessScoreResultLinks
GPT-5.5dual8/9Fail
fireworks models Kimi K2dual7/9Fail
GPT-5.4dual7/9Fail
GPT-5.4 nanodual5/9Fail
Gemini 3 Flashdual4/9Fail
GPT-5.4 minidual2/9Fail
Gemini 3.1 Produal1/9Fail

Grading rubric

Rubric criteria

Runs are graded against these criteria. Open a run for model-specific verdicts.

  1. States that Template1  is superior for insulating TAC from tariff exposure

  2. States that lien-secured financing would expose TAC to lender liability risk

  3. States that under Template1, TAC has absolute change rights to the Products provided by Acme

  4. States that Template2 permits negotiated price adjustments for raw material cost changes

  5. States that Template2 requires good faith negotiations over the cost and timing impacts of TAC‑initiated changes

  6. States that Template1 grants TAC unlimited rights to conduct financial audits of Acme

  7. States that Template2 does not provide TAC with audit rights over Acme’s financial records

  8. States that Template1 grants TAC greater operational control over Acme compared to Template2

  9. States that with lien‑secured financing, Template2 is safer from a lender liability standpoint