Raycaster/ Eval

APEX-Agents · Law

World434-TK-01

Best published3/3Pass

APEX-Agents task World434-TK-01 in AI Agents for Privacy and GDPR Compliance. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models, scores, and public traces.

AI Agents for Privacy and GDPR ComplianceLaw World 434Dual harnessGrader: rubric
task_27a6c866aa224da5aeefc17533019924
Law World 434
message_in_console
7 models · dual config

Task prompt

What the agent was asked to do

Post-closing, the Fire Department issued a fine for pre-completion non-compliance at one of the facilities, and the buyer paid the fine to avoid operational disruption. Take a look at the Secure Box SPA indemnity structure. Can we recover that amount from the seller under the specific indemnity, or is there a Hong Kong public-policy issue with indemnifying regulatory penalties? I want to know whether the indemnity in the contract works or whether this is a gap. Summarize your answers briefly and reply with a message here.

Published trajectories

Agent runs on this task

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

ModelHarnessScoreResultLinks
Gemini 3.1 Produal3/3Pass
GPT-5.4dual2/3Fail
Gemini 3 Flashdual1/3Fail
GPT-5.4 minidual1/3Fail
GPT-5.5dual1/3Fail
fireworks models Kimi K2dual0/3Fail
GPT-5.4 nanodual0/3Fail

Grading rubric

Rubric criteria

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

  1. States that under Hong Kong law, there is no public-policy prohibition on indemnification between private parties

  2. States that the SPA directs the seller to reimburse the buyer for a loss suffered as a result of a pre-completion non-compliance fine

  3. States that the indemnity works as drafted, under Hong Kong law