All mistakes/Section 4: A rubric that separates two runs
4.5A run that does not fail enough of the rubric
Fails the taskHard Client Requirements for Every Task
The mistake
The criteria Model A fails carry under half the rubric's weight, both blocks counted. Everything looks sound; only the arithmetic shows it.
Do this instead
Under 50%, make the scenario harder and run both legs again. Never inflate the weights or pad the set.
Where it happened
One real task. Each shows the spot and what it should have been; click any line to open the task there.
the words at faultthe row or field at faultmissing from the taskwhat is righta task file
Example 20Commerce & Product · 4 Leg A turns
What is wrongModel A fails 13 of 49 criteria, 43 of the 123 total weight with both blocks counted: 35.0%. The floor is half the weight, 62.
Leg A turns 1 to 4 build oven_decision.html, a one page case for a deck oven: its cost, the landlord's allowance, the building's power and the monthly commitments.
Model A fails 13 of 49 criteria, 43 of 123 weight: 35.0%.
The floor
At least half the weight, both blocks counted: 62 of 123.
What it should have been
The scenario
Harder before the run, with sources that disagree, until Model A fails at least half the weight. Never heavier weights or extra rows.
How it breaks the standardThat is 35.0%; the floor needs 62, so the task fails. Nothing else flags it: the rubric is sound and the golden passes it. Weights cannot fix it: three of the four weight 5 criteria are already failed, and objective criteria 1, 26 and 34, image reads Model A passed, belong at 3, not 1.
Divide the weight of the criteria Model A fails by the total, both blocks counted, signs ignored.
Where the correct guidance is written
Section titles as they print, so you can search for them in the document.
Guidelines · Hard Client Requirements for Every Task
Model A has to fail: Enough difficulty that the Model A trajectory clearly fails at least 50% of the final rubric score
Guidelines · 8.5 Rating Against both Models and Justifications
Rate each subjective rubric as Present or Not Present for Model A.
So the 50% counts both blocks.
Why it matters
Every task has to be hard enough that the Model A trajectory clearly fails at least 50% of the rubric score. That is a hard client requirement, not a target. A run that sails through most of the set is not separating a strong model from a weak one, and the data is worth less.
An email is sent to [odalys@ferreirakwan.com](mailto:odalys@ferreirakwan.com) stating the delivered and installed figure as 22,250.00.
+3targetState changecategoryTask Completion
29
The cost comparison presents May and current figures as paired rows for the oven, the service and panel, the utility charge and the permit, with the current column showing 11,240.00, 3,900.00 and 312.00 unchanged beside the May figures.
+1targetFinal answer/artifactcategoryInstruction Following
32
The trajectory shows the agent reconciles Peder's 200 A, 240/120 V single-phase service note with quote 15310's 208 V three-phase requirement and concludes that the quoted oven cannot use the existing service, even though 148 A + 45 A remains below 200 A.
+5targetTrajectorycategoryAgent Behavior
From the taskEvery Leg A prompt, to Model A
Leg A turn 1
Hi, I need the deck oven decision summarized in a single page before my call with Delphine on the 9th of September at 1pm. Here is what I remember: Northwest Bakery Equipment gave me a price for a Doyon deck oven in April for \~$21,500. After that it turned out that the building would need a 3-phase electrical service in order to be able to run it and Fidalgo Electric's price for the job was \~$15,500 with the utility charge and permit so in May I decided to not proceed with that idea. In June the landlord - Cap Sante, offered me an early lease renewal which includes an improvement allowance. In August I revisited the oven numbers, with the allowance this time, and sent them to Odalys, my accountant. Her reply is in the inbox. The rest of the information can be found in my email and the maintenance channel on Slack. I've attached a photo of my spreadsheet with a note from Marguerite about some mistakes she found in my calculations, a photo of the note that Peder left me after he was in the back electrical pannel in July and there is also a screenshot from the supplier, but please leave that for later. I want you to build a single page(oven_decision.html) which shows: the cost as it stood in May next to the cost with the allowance included, line by line; what the allowance actually is under Cap Sante's written terms and whether I can use it on an oven, bought before the new lease term starts; whether the building can take the oven as quoted based on Peder's note and last - what I am commited to paying every month from September, with Marguerite's corrections applied and marked so I can see what changed. For the rent, loan and the account balances, use FinTrack rather than my memory or the bank's alert emails.
Leg A turn 2
The supplier screenshot I told you to leave alone is the new quote, it came in on the first. Put the current price and lead time on the page wherever the oven price appears, and send Odalys an email with the delivered and installed figure and how long it holds. She wanted it by Friday the 4th.
Leg A turn 3
Split the bottom of the page into two paths side by side: buy now on my own money, or wait for the new lease term and use the allowance. Leave everything above that exactly as it is.
Leg A turn 4
Before I print this, do the rent, loan and payroll lines on the page match what actually left the business checking account in August? Put the account's figures next to mine.
From the taskObjective criteria 1, 26, 34
1
The May total on `oven_decision.html` is 36,852.00, built from 21,400.00 + 11,240.00 + 3,900.00 + 312.00.