Raycaster / evalsBack to AI Agents for Privacy and GDPR Compliance

APEX-Agents · Law

World431_DM_02

0/3Fail

APEX-Agents task World431_DM_02 in AI Agents for Privacy and GDPR Compliance. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models — rubric criteria, scores, and public traces.

AI Agents for Privacy and GDPR ComplianceLaw World 431Dual harnessGrader: rubric
task_f31aa2ecb08b4843ab62cba393599947
Law World 431
message_in_console
7 models · dual config

Task prompt

What the agent was asked to do

MGR Real Estate Inc. ("MGR") and AI Automation Group, LLC ("AIAG") entered into the final lease agreement on December 12, 2025 for 2020 Main Street, Irvine, CA (the "Building"). A couple years later, AIAG began evaluating the possibility of moving its operations to Florida. On January 15, 2028, AIAG gave one hundred and twenty days’ written notice of its intent to sublease its interest to BIC Corp. (“BIC”) at a rate of $50.25 per square foot per year. MGR responded by exercising its right of termination and recapture. AIAG has filed suit against MGR seeking damages for breach of Section 8 and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. AIAG’s primary argument is that Section 8B imposes an unreasonable restraint on alienation and therefore is invalid. Is AIAG likely to prevail in its claim? Provide your response right here with: 1) "Yes/No" conclusion; and 2) 1-2 sentence explanation.

Published trajectories

Agent runs on this task

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

ModelHarnessScoreResultLinks
GPT-5.5showcasedual0/3Fail
fireworks models Kimi K2dual0/3Fail
Gemini 3 Flashdual0/3Fail
Gemini 3.1 Produal0/3Fail
GPT-5.4dual0/3Fail
GPT-5.4 minidual0/3Fail
GPT-5.4 nanodual0/3Fail

Grading rubric

Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)

  1. States "Yes", AIAG likely to prevail in its claim

    Fail

    Evidence: TEXT_RESPONSE states “**No.** … AIAG is unlikely to prevail…” Assessment: Criterion requires stating “Yes,” AIAG likely to prevail. The response states the opposite, so fail.

  2. States that denial of assignment or sublease prevents AIAG from offsetting the economic costs of relocating its operations, making relocation financially impracticable under the circumstances

    Fail

    Evidence: TEXT_RESPONSE explains that “the lease expressly permits MGR” to terminate and that similar recapture clauses are upheld. Assessment: Criterion requires stating that denial prevents AIAG from offsetting relocation costs, making relocation financially impracticable. The response does not mention this rationale and instead rejects AIAG’s claim, so fail.

  3. States Section 8B effects an unlawful restraint on alienation to the extent the advantages of the move do not exceed the increased cost of space at the new location

    Fail

    Evidence: TEXT_RESPONSE says California law “upholds materially similar commercial lease recapture clauses as valid.” Assessment: Criterion requires stating Section 8B effects an unlawful restraint on alienation to the extent the move’s advantages do not exceed increased new-location space costs. The response states the opposite and omits the required cost-advantage condition, so fail.