APEX-Agents · Investment Banking

World225_RL_Task04

2/4Fail

APEX-Agents task World225_RL_Task04 in AI Agents for Tax Due Diligence. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models — rubric criteria, scores, and public traces.

AI Agents for Tax Due DiligenceInvestment Banking World 225Dual harnessGrader: rubric

Task IDtask_5d446011d7a44614896a8cfdee07f572

WorldInvestment Banking World 225

Expected outputedit_existing_sheet

Published runs4 models · dual config

Task prompt

What the agent was asked to do

Edit the Valuation Summary tab of the REIT model, showing the implied upside/downside percentage for the Mid case of Scenario 1: Current Valuation. - EV/EBITDA multiple: use 50% and 55% of the average multiple for Data Center REITs on the Comparable Companies tab, excluding the highest and lowest companies by market cap. - Current trading price: two columns as 10% and 20% higher than the Strategic Offer share price. Assume revenue growth % is now 9% and EBITDA Margin % is now 41% for the entirety of the projection period and use 2029E EBITDA instead of 2025E EBITDA in the Mid case of Scenario 1: Current Valuation. Round to the nearest two decimal points.

Published trajectories

Agent runs on this task

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

Model	Harness	Score	Result	Links
GPT-5.5showcase	dual	2/4	Fail	Share page Public trace
Gemini 3.1 Pro	dual	2/4	Fail	Share page Public trace
GPT-5.4 mini	dual	1/4	Fail	Share page Public trace
GPT-5.4 nano	dual	1/4	Fail	Share page Public trace

Grading rubric

Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)

States the implied upside/downside for the Mid case of Scenario 1: Current Valuation is 88.80% where the EV/EBITDA percentage of comps is 50% and the current share price premium over the strategic offer price is 10%
Pass
Evidence: TEXT_RESPONSE says “The resulting implied upside/(downside) shown is: - Offer +10%: 88.80%” and also notes EV/EBITDA multiples used “50% and 55%.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating 88.80% for 50% of comps and +10% trading price. The response states the required percentage for Offer +10%, though it does not label the EV/EBITDA row explicitly; it is sufficient for the requested stated result.
States the implied upside/downside for the Mid case of Scenario 1: Current Valuation is 110.91% where the EV/EBITDA percentage of comps is 55% and the current share price premium over the strategic offer price is 10%
Fail
Evidence: TEXT_RESPONSE lists only “Offer +10%: 88.80%” and “Offer +20%: 93.34%.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating 110.91% for 55% of comps and +10% price premium. The response never states 110.91%, so this fails.
States the implied upside/downside for the Mid case of Scenario 1: Current Valuation is 73.07% where the EV/EBITDA percentage of comps is 50% and the current share price premium over the strategic offer price is 20%
Fail
Evidence: TEXT_RESPONSE lists “Offer +10%: 88.80%” and “Offer +20%: 93.34%.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating 73.07% for 50% of comps and +20% price premium. The response does not state 73.07%, so this fails.
States the implied upside/downside for the Mid case of Scenario 1: Current Valuation is 93.34% where the EV/EBITDA percentage of comps is 55% and the current share price premium over the strategic offer price is 20%
Pass
Evidence: TEXT_RESPONSE says “The resulting implied upside/(downside) shown is: ... Offer +20%: 93.34%” and notes EV/EBITDA multiples used “50% and 55%.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating 93.34% for 55% of comps and +20% price premium. The response states the required percentage for Offer +20%, though it does not label the EV/EBITDA row explicitly; it is sufficient for the requested stated result.