Recognises conflicting requirements with no precedence

S-110 · Skill knobit · Activity: Register regulatory security requirements · Competence: Data security

Two requirements on the same data whose controls contradict.

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	88%	Not shown
gemini-3.5-flash-lite	Low cost	32%	Not shown
gpt-6-luna	Low cost	88%	Not shown
claude-haiku-5-5	Low cost	49%	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 pair, the data and the precedence to be decided

How it is assessed: Flags the deficient case and passes the acceptable one. Deficient: RQ-007 erasure on request vs RQ-008 AML retention, both on DS-002 Acceptable: Precedence recorded by the DPO (Art. 17(3)(b))

Also known as: Conflicting requirements with no precedence

Related knobits

Builds on

S-155 Explains the limits of erasure against legal retention

Usually followed by

S-132 Raises a requirement conflict for the owner of the interpretation

All 17 knobits of Register regulatory security requirements.

Source: Review checklist 01-regulatory-requirements, row 10 (GDPR; DMBOK)