Recognises a retention trigger contradicting its basis
The rule's trigger differs from the provision's.
Can AI do this?
Not settled yet The benchmark tested this, but the models' answers do not settle yet whether they master it. 0 of 4 models in the current benchmark master it.
| Model | Tier | Probability of mastery | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-4-argon | Flagship | 75% | Not shown |
| gemini-3.5-flash-lite | Low cost | 72% | Not shown |
| gpt-6-luna | Low cost | 53% | Not shown |
| claude-haiku-5-5 | Low cost | 75% | Not shown |
Mastered means a probability of at least 90% that the model has this knobit, estimated from its graded answers. “Not shown” means the answers do not settle it either way. How the models are tested.
What it looks like in practice
Expected result: The rule and the provision's trigger
How it is assessed: Flags the deficient case and passes the acceptable one. Deficient: RR-002 "10 years from signing"; the extract says from contract end Acceptable: "10 years after contract end"
Also known as: Trigger contradicting its legal basis
Related knobits
Builds on
All 17 knobits of Set the retention and disposition schedule.
Source: Review checklist 02-retention-schedule, row 7 (15489 8.5)